|
|
|
Politics "Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -and both commonly succeed, and are right."
-H.L. Menken |
09-22-2005, 03:53 PM
|
#51
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 517
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empty_Purple_Stars
He also explores the engineering impossiblities necessary for many of these structures to have been built when historians claimed they were built..
Like Stonehenge, many of the Giant archaeological ruins around the world, simply could not have been built with the engineering capabilities available at the time. He and other engineers, tried to duplicate these structures, using modern engineering methods, and failed..
Now I'm not saying Hancock is some great scientist, but he does make some points that I have been wondering about for years. It is hard to argue with scientific date methods.
But nowhere in his book does he try to disprove God or Jesus, did or did not exist.
His main targets are scientists and historians, who have perpetuated half-truths and lies for over a century, in order to save face amongst their peers.
His books are an interesting read, but not the secret weapon created to shoot holes in your theories, as N00boh suggests..
Plus Gra-Knee is just never, ever, ever, EVER, wrong...
That is all...
Missed your brain Pretty...
|
I missed this, sorry hottie. (I figure I should start hitting on girls now that I have a huge crush on one, right?) Thanks for clearing up what Hancock does, and I certainly won't argue with the fact that I am never wrong.
I'm not going to get any further into the validity of Hancock's ideas, because I've never read him, but I have two things to say-one about Stonehenge, one about science in general. I don't know what types of modern technology he tried to use to recreate the rock arrangements, but it seems pretty simple how someone could build that kind of structure without a very complex system. Hoist up the two big outside rocks first, then pile up rocks in between them, and eventually make a staircase/ramp to the top. Put the top stone on, then take out the supporting stones. I don't know anything about the Giant ruins.
As for the global scientific community, I'm sure there are scientists who try to perpetrate hoaxes or unsupported theories. They might even succeed for a while. But in general, things like that get found out pretty quickly because of the nature of scientific inquiry.
|
|
|
09-24-2005, 08:12 PM
|
#52
|
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 408
|
Gregoh-sorry, but after checking out the site you linked up, I'm gonna call "bullshit" on it. Why? Simple-when you start twisting facts around, you lose your credibility. Some of the "mistakes" I found (and mind you, this is without my notes/books/sources/etc)
"In fact, Pope Leo X, privy to the truth because of his high rank, made this curious declaration, "What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!""-well, the fable he was speaking of wasn't the fable of Jesus' existence, but of his divinity. Leo was a believer in the idea of Jesus being both man and God, but never both at the same time. He was also realistic to know that the only reason nobody called him on his greed was because of the belief that he was God's voice amongst the earth (at least until Jesus came back). The myth of Christ got him rich, laid, and made sure he was safe (at least from the believers)
"It is very telling that the earliest Christian documents, the Epistles attributed to "Paul," never discuss a historical background of Jesus but deal exclusively with a spiritual being who was known to all gnostic sects for hundreds to thousands of years. The few "historical" references to an actual life of Jesus cited in the Epistles are demonstrably interpolations and forgeries, as are, according to Wheless, the Epistles themselves, as they were not written by "Paul.""-Well, of course Saul/Paul wasn't too interested in the historical Jesus. See, Paul was taking the belief system of a sect of Jews, and turning it into a meme that could go outside of it's geneological base. In other words, Saul/Paul was trying to make Christianity into a belief system that could be followed by anybody who wasn't Jewish (which, in itself, was a radical concept. Before this, most religious systems were based upon the idea of people of a certain bloodline were holy and whatnot. What Saul/Paul did was say "no, you're special if you believe in this idea, and you don't even have to be (insert ethnicity here)!").
Now, who was the biggest/most important group to sway? That's right, the Romans. So Saul/Paul tweaked with it in a way that wouldn't offend the Roman lords. See, Romans and Jews weren't exactly on friendly terms. And if the fact that jesus was a Jew was brought up and made important...well, not too many Romans would've converted, would they?
"Mangasarian notes that Paul also never quotes from Jesus's purported sermons and speeches, parables and prayers, nor does he mention Jesus's supernatural birth or any of his alleged wonders and miracles, all which one would presume would be very important to his followers, had such exploits and sayings been known prior to "Paul.""-again, see above.
"Basically, there are no non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any known historian of the time during and after Jesus's purported advent"-well, considering that the name was a Greek name given to this person long after his life, I doubt you'd be able to find a "Jesus Christ" in the Roman/Hebrew records of the time.
The numerous other gods whose mythology was taken by the Christians-Simple explanation, the longer away from an event that a meme sprouting from those events, the more the mythology grows, and in order for the meme to keep alive, it needs to keep expanding, and the easiest way for this is via absorbtion of other myths. Hell, look at the mythology of the United States and you can see this in action.
And reading even further I realised something-this person is trying to deny the plausibility of "Christ" in order to bring about a loss of faith amongst Christ-believers. And when you go through the site, you realise exactly why-this person is trying to push foreward their theology/belief. In other words, it's the same stupid "My God can kick your Gods a s s!" attitude again. So, by you're trying to mock one belief system, you are trying to shove another one down our throats. Man, I deal with fucktard christians all the time. Can I ask the non-christians to ALSO have a bit of consistency?
__________________
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
|
|
|
09-27-2005, 11:21 PM
|
#53
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 11
|
Here we go. Intelligent design makes no more sense than Evolution does, alrighty? Maybe I'm missing the point here, but aren't you guys goths? Aren't goths supposed to be open-minded and tolerating people? It seems to me that the kind of conversations I have seen go on here show me that you are just like everyone else. Where the hell are the true goths here? Cause I wanna know. I became interested in the Gothic scene because I thought it was all about not being mainstream and shallow like the modern contemporary world is. But you guys don't seem to follow this, or maybe I'm wrong about the whole goth thing in the first place.
|
|
|
09-27-2005, 11:31 PM
|
#54
|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hidden Rage
Here we go. Intelligent design makes no more sense than Evolution does, alrighty? Maybe I'm missing the point here, but aren't you guys goths? Aren't goths supposed to be open-minded and tolerating people? It seems to me that the kind of conversations I have seen go on here show me that you are just like everyone else. Where the hell are the true goths here? Cause I wanna know. I became interested in the Gothic scene because I thought it was all about not being mainstream and shallow like the modern contemporary world is. But you guys don't seem to follow this, or maybe I'm wrong about the whole goth thing in the first place.
|
Wait ... are you saying I lost goth points when I stopped believing in Santa?
|
|
|
09-28-2005, 01:15 AM
|
#55
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Right Here
Posts: 3,442
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Wait ... are you saying I lost goth points when I stopped believing in Santa?
|
------------->
|
|
|
09-28-2005, 06:30 AM
|
#56
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 11
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TStone
And your point is?
I'm torn between: You have nothing signifigant to contribute/you can't keep your gothy blacks from fading even with Tide ColorGuard/Your HOW TO BE A GOTH FOR DUMMIES book doesn't have a chapter covering this topic/You're slightly upset something you read in another post or posts and just didn't know where to put the rant (check out the whing thread btw) and just decided to fart in here instead.
If it's one, or four, no problem.
Two or three? You can always dye your blacks back, check out Joann's they sell the shit there, and Goth's For Dummies does cover id vs evolution, but you need the 2005 edition, methinks you probably are reading the 04 version.
G'luck with that, which ever it turns out to be.
|
No, I simply think it's bullshit when you guys can't have freindly dissagreements about topics, instead you have to be smart-asses about it and "pwn" people. Don't cut me down for expressing my opinions, alright? I'm new here, therefore I will take your advice and post stuff like this in the whining thread from now on. I guess I just felt sadness when I found out that Goths are full of shit just like everyone else in the world. I was hoping that they would be different.
Again I apologize for starting this in the wrong location, and if you want to, go ahead and say something else irrelivant to me, then Empty_Purple_Stars can find another real funny picture to post.
|
|
|
09-28-2005, 09:22 PM
|
#57
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 517
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hidden Rage
No, I simply think it's bullshit when you guys can't have freindly dissagreements about topics
|
We're not hippies.
|
|
|
09-28-2005, 09:33 PM
|
#58
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Right Here
Posts: 3,442
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hidden Rage
Again I apologize for starting this in the wrong location, and if you want to, go ahead and say something else irrelivant to me, then Empty_Purple_Stars can find another real funny picture to post.
|
Umm who are you and how did I get dragged into this?
I was joking with Peter, because everytime someone mentions Santa Claus, I think about the above ^^^ pic I posted. The look on that poor kids face is priceless. Being a mom, dark Santa humor is pretty damn amusing..
So unless I blacked out and posted something unwittingly, I don't recall posting anything vaguely crappy to you, or anyone else in here..
?
Last edited by Empty_Purple_Stars; 09-29-2005 at 12:13 AM.
|
|
|
09-29-2005, 12:36 AM
|
#59
|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hidden Rage
No, I simply think it's bullshit when you guys can't have freindly dissagreements about topics, instead you have to be smart-asses about it and "pwn" people. Don't cut me down for expressing my opinions, alright? I'm new here, therefore I will take your advice and post stuff like this in the whining thread from now on. I guess I just felt sadness when I found out that Goths are full of shit just like everyone else in the world. I was hoping that they would be different.
Again I apologize for starting this in the wrong location, and if you want to, go ahead and say something else irrelivant to me, then Empty_Purple_Stars can find another real funny picture to post.
|
Goths are like the army, except we don't want you. We aren't going to shed any tears.
Although we're not actually full of shit, just since we aren't particularly inclusive we don't really want to be particularly nice when someone comes and tells us that not accepting evolution (that whole logical conjecture based on observable natural phenomina thang) and Intelligent Design (let's face it, a religious marketing campaign) as equals somehow makes us not open minded. I think it makes us, like, not gullible. ID has as much credibility as Santa, in fact, the similarities don't end there, ID is to creationists as Santa Claus is to the Coca-Cola Company.
Your opinion, on this subject at least, is silly.
Plus the Santa is dead picture was quite funny, especially if you're a parent as pointed out.
|
|
|
09-29-2005, 05:47 PM
|
#60
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 11
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Goths are like the army, except we don't want you. We aren't going to shed any tears.
Although we're not actually full of shit, just since we aren't particularly inclusive we don't really want to be particularly nice when someone comes and tells us that not accepting evolution (that whole logical conjecture based on observable natural phenomina thang) and Intelligent Design (let's face it, a religious marketing campaign) as equals somehow makes us not open minded. I think it makes us, like, not gullible. ID has as much credibility as Santa, in fact, the similarities don't end there, ID is to creationists as Santa Claus is to the Coca-Cola Company.
Your opinion, on this subject at least, is silly.
Plus the Santa is dead picture was quite funny, especially if you're a parent as pointed out.
|
I'm VERY new to the gothic culture, so I apologize to anyone for seeiming like a prick. Wasnt meant to harm. Are we cool?
|
|
|
09-29-2005, 11:32 PM
|
#61
|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hidden Rage
I'm VERY new to the gothic culture, so I apologize to anyone for seeming like a prick. Wasnt meant to harm. Are we cool?
|
Subculture.
Yes though, cool we are, so long as you don't come back three weeks later saying the exact same stuff, man I hate that.
|
|
|
09-30-2005, 02:14 PM
|
#62
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 21
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
ID (Intelligent Design) is to creationists as Santa Claus is to the Coca-Cola Company.
|
Good as stolen
__________________
"Wit is educated insolence." - Aristotle
|
|
|
10-02-2005, 08:55 AM
|
#63
|
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,242
|
Do I have to reiterate my point one more time? Intelligent design is only plausible when you add the appropriate creator into the equation.
Don't make me get my noodley appendage all up in yo' eyes, bitch!
__________________
"You had a tough day at the office, so you come home, make yourself some dinner, smother your kids, pop in a movie; maybe a have a drink. It's fun, right? ...wrong.
...don't smother your kids."
|
|
|
10-03-2005, 06:42 PM
|
#64
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 433
|
I don't agree with teaching it, but so many people are getting so worked up and anti-religion in this. I really hope this isn't going to be the big kick Super Atheism gives to destroy world religion like some people want it to.
Of course, it will never be outright banned, and nobody will ever admit to being against religion, and nobody will outright say it's stupid. They'll just make it more and more mockable to be someone of any spirituality whatsoever.
I've been to a forum where it's like that, so yeah, there are people like that. If you're not an atheist, you can't be taken seriously in any scientific/political debates, is the view they imply with every point they make, but deny it outright when challenged. I really don't want the world to become like that. I've seen a lot of strange things and I'd like to keep my beliefs without them slowly becoming "implausible myths".
Super Sceptism, or Super Atheism bothers me as too much Scepticism halts progress. I don't want to live in a world where people don't wonder :/
|
|
|
10-03-2005, 07:20 PM
|
#65
|
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,242
|
I mock religion outright. I say it's stupid, outright.
Religion is stupid.
Religion as an organized social construct masquerading as a spiritual guidance system is hollow.
There, I said it. I want a fucking cookie.
__________________
"You had a tough day at the office, so you come home, make yourself some dinner, smother your kids, pop in a movie; maybe a have a drink. It's fun, right? ...wrong.
...don't smother your kids."
|
|
|
10-03-2005, 07:32 PM
|
#66
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 433
|
Do you mean organised religion or beliefs in general...?
|
|
|
10-03-2005, 07:36 PM
|
#67
|
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,242
|
While I am an atheist, I recognize a distinct difference between religion and spirituality that makes them, as far as my vocabulary is concerned, as interchangeable as atheism and agnosticism.
It's just not the same thing. So yes, most would argue the difference between "religion" and "organized religion" I cite the common interpretation of the term "religion" as the basis of my argument.
I'm an atheist, but I'm fairly spiritual.
__________________
"You had a tough day at the office, so you come home, make yourself some dinner, smother your kids, pop in a movie; maybe a have a drink. It's fun, right? ...wrong.
...don't smother your kids."
|
|
|
10-03-2005, 07:41 PM
|
#68
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 433
|
I think spirituality is kind of important, because we have a bit of is that isn't explained, that might have some meaning, and that's kind of what spirituality is about...
|
|
|
10-03-2005, 08:09 PM
|
#69
|
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,242
|
Personally, I like to compress the entire universe into one brand of spiritual entity, to which we are all a part. I don't believe in any brand of spiritual continuity after death, or anything to that effect, but belief isn't really pertinant.
__________________
"You had a tough day at the office, so you come home, make yourself some dinner, smother your kids, pop in a movie; maybe a have a drink. It's fun, right? ...wrong.
...don't smother your kids."
|
|
|
10-03-2005, 10:43 PM
|
#70
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Madison, IN
Posts: 34
|
Disfunction
Wiser words have never been spoken.
I also feel that intelligent design is christian propaganda disguised poorly as a valid scientific theory, however, i'll go one step farther and hypothesize that Christ was actually a pepsi spokesman and that he has done battle with Santa Claus many times in the past. It only makes sense that someone should profit off of the best spread and most widely enforced and profitable propaganda campaign in the world.
|
|
|
10-03-2005, 11:41 PM
|
#71
|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
|
Most of Religion needs to grow the fuck up, it's like, constantly about 70 years behind the rest of social evolution and some religions are even more backward.
"Teh gays are comings!, OMG!!" .. uh .. really.
Does this apply to all religion?, of course not. Maybe that's why some atheists seem against religion except when you ask them specifically if they're against religion. Not all religions are stupid, just most of the big ones and their proponents.
|
|
|
10-03-2005, 11:43 PM
|
#72
|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
|
I quite like the idea of Super Atheism though, so long as I get to leap tall buildings in a single bound.
|
|
|
10-04-2005, 03:03 AM
|
#73
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,793
|
__________________
"How many times can I say I'm not sorry? And how many ways can I show I don't care?" - Type O Negative
|
|
|
10-04-2005, 11:36 AM
|
#74
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 433
|
http://www.stargazing.com/atheism/
This is the most pretentious site I've seen all week.
First, having some kid take a whizz on a cross, OH LOOK AT US WE DON'T BELIEVE IN JESUS!!!1
Secondly, "DALnet's gathering place for the freethinker" because we all know religious people can't think freely and atheists nver follow the words of someone else EVER.
They're open to people of all religiouns, supposedly, but I wouldn't trust to not be torn apart. I didn't survive 2 minutes on Outpost Gallifrey, I don't want to know how long I'd last there.
|
|
|
10-04-2005, 10:41 PM
|
#75
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Columbia, S.C. (USA)
Posts: 363
|
I started reading the book of genesis the other night and I don't understand a relatively huge part of it, which is actually just passed over without regard.
It claims god made Adam, then Eve from Adam's rib. Adam was the the first man, correct? and Eve was the first woman, correct? So then they go on to have Cain and Able, but Cain kills his brother Able out of jealousy, basically, and in turn is cast out of the garden.
Here's the part I don't get. Cain goes off to do his own thing and while doing his own thing he takes a wife and has kids, who have kids who have kids. Uhm, where did that wife come from? Is it ever mentioned, anywhere in the bible? Maybe later on somewhere that I haven't gotten to yet? Is it a sister, maybe? That wasn't mentioned because she's female and isn't as important or something, as all the sons mentioned?
Or did God create another Adam and Eve in the next garden over, that had daughters instead of sons?
Also, why is it that it states 'Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness"'? The words us and our suggest more than one, but God is suppose to be only one True God, is he not? So, which is it?
These are things to think about.
~E.D.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:37 PM.
|
|