The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[Iron MikeyJ]

3 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

I hate to shatter any illusions here but Atlantis is made up.  By Plato.  Its literally fictional, like the Little Mermaid, Sebastian the crab, Flounder, all made up.  There is no lost city of Atlantis. 

EDIT:  shit, McLeod has more or less pointed that out up there, sorry!

Very well could be. I'm not a firm believer in Atlantis, lol. I'm just open to possibilities. Especially when science and history doesn't know HALF as much about things 3,000 BC and earlier as they like to claim they do. They have theories, but they are just that THEORIES. Like I've said before, they like to proclaim that the Sphinx was built around 2,500 BC (by the same pharaoh that built the great pyramid), despite there being TONS of evidence to the contrary. Instead of saying things like "There is just so much about these anchient civilazions that we dont know." They instead proclaim their theories as factual, and most of these theories get put into textbooks, further being portrayed as factual. That's VERY unscientific by nature imo. I mean heck, when you really get down to nitty gritty about these things, they were FAR more remarkable that most scientists are willing to admit. The four corners of the Pyramids are almost perfectly north, south, east, and west (geographically speaking). No they are not 100% true north, but amazingly close for such a "primitive" civilization. Also when you consider the fact that they are a direct "copy" of the stars in Orion's belt constellation that would have been seen in the stars above Egypt around 5,000 BC, that also begs a few questions. 

Again Scientist will say "they were just tombs." Which perhaps they were, but you can't just dismiss the possibility they were MORE than just that. 

Edited November 10, 2018 by Iron MikeyJ

[Dazey]

48 minutes ago, Sosso said:

https://www.famousscientists.org/famous-muslim-arab-persian-scientists-and-their-inventions/

Got anything more recent than the 15th century? To be fair that's tantamount to a scouser bragging about winning the league.  

[Len Cnut]

11 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Very well could be. I'm not a firm believer in Atlantis, lol. I'm just open to possibilities. Especially when science and history doesn't know HALF as much about things 3,000 BC and earlier as they like to claim they do. They have theories, but they are just that THEORIES. Like I've said before, they like to proclaim that the Sphinx was built around 2,500 BC (by the same pharaoh that built the great pyramid), despite there being TONS of evidence to the contrary. Instead of saying things like "There is just so much about these anchient civilazions that we dont know." They instead proclaim their theories as factual, and most of these theories get put into textbooks, further being portrayed as factual. That's VERY unscientific by nature imo. I mean heck, when you really get down to nitty gritty about these things, they were FAR more remarkable that most scientists are willing to admit. The four corners of the Pyramids are almost perfectly north, south, east, and west (geographically speaking). Not they are not 100% true north, but amazingly close for such a "primitive" civilization. Also when you consider the fact that they are a direct "copy" of the stars in Orion's belt constellation that would have been seen in the stars above Egypt around 5,000 BC, that also begs a few questions. 

Again Scientist will say "they were just tombs." Which perhaps they were, but you can't just dismiss the possibility they were MORE than just that. 

Theory in the scientific sense means a bit more than 'this is our guess'

[Dazey]

7 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Very well could be. I'm not a firm believer in Atlantis, lol. I'm just open to possibilities. Especially when science and history doesn't know HALF as much about things 3,000 BC and earlier as they like to claim they do.

You're not a firm believer in a fairy story? Well go you!  Science does know that the rocks in the Richat Structure are hundreds of millions of years old and since humans haven't been around for a fraction of that time it's clearly nonsense. It's not a question of belief. You have the right to your own opinions but you don't have the right to your own facts. 

7 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Very well could be. I'm not a firm believer in Atlantis, lol. I'm just open to possibilities. Especially when science and history doesn't know HALF as much about things 3,000 BC and earlier as they like to claim they do. They have theories, but they are just that THEORIES.

You have no idea what the word theory means in a scientific context do you?

 

EDIT: Fuck you @Len Cnut

Edited November 10, 2018 by Dazey

[Len Cnut]

10 minutes ago, Dazey said:

You're not a firm believer in a fairy story? Well go you!  Science does know that the rocks in the Richat Structure are hundreds of millions of years old and since humans haven't been around for a fraction of that time it's clearly nonsense. It's not a question of belief. You have the right to your own opinions but you don't have the right to your own facts. 

You have no idea what the word theory means in a scientific context do you?

 

EDIT: Fuck you @Len Cnut

On an unrelated note, have you changed your number?  I ask because I was on one last weekend, bangin' out lines of ching and havin' a giggle, sent you a pic of 5 fat lines to make you jealous and the pic bounced back

[Dazey]

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

On an unrelated note, have you changed your number?  I ask because I was on one last weekend, bangin' out lines of ching and havin' a giggle, sent you a pic of 5 fat lines to make you jealous and the pic bounced back

Nah mate but I've got a shit phone I borrowed and it can't receive picture messages for some strange reason.  

[HOOSIER GUNZ]

 would the discovery of fossilized ancient sea life add any weight the the theory of it being the actual site of atlantis

 jimmy is offering money for proof.  

[Iron MikeyJ]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

Theory in the scientific sense means a bit more than 'this is our guess'

No, not really. By definition it IS just a guess. Educated guess, sure. But guess none the less.

[Iron MikeyJ]

29 minutes ago, Dazey said:

You're not a firm believer in a fairy story? Well go you!  Science does know that the rocks in the Richat Structure are hundreds of millions of years old and since humans haven't been around for a fraction of that time it's clearly nonsense. It's not a question of belief. You have the right to your own opinions but you don't have the right to your own facts. 

Of course THE ROCKS are quite old, they are rocks, lol. 

[Len Cnut]

17 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

No, not really. By definition it IS just a guess. Educated guess, sure. But guess none the less.

Its means a notion is tested every which way humanly possible through all available means until a thing is established as a theory, only really named such to keep the situation open to someone who can disprove it or expand on it.  It doesn't mean thats its some half baked shot in the dark corroborated by some 12 yr olds My First Scientist kit.  If you can disprove it you're welcome to do so but pointing out that it is a theory does not invalidate it or even really cast doubt because it doesn't mean theory in the sense of Lens theory of what The Stones were trying to do with their mid 70s releases, it means a tried and tested notion that you are welcome to dispute, which is the beauty of science, were it to be settled as fact would kind of mean the death of science because science is ever expanding, its building upon available understanding, theory in science doesn't mean 'some bollocks we dreamt up that may or may not be correct, we haven't really thought about it'.  It is absolutely nothing like a guess.

Edited November 10, 2018 by Len Cnut

[Dazey]

Just now, Iron MikeyJ said:

Of course THE ROCKS are quite old, they are rocks, lol. 

So by definition anything buried beneath them has to be older. Think about it. 

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

Its means a notion is tested every which way humanly possible through all available means until a thing is established as a theory, only really named such to keep the situation open to someone who can disprove it or expand on it.  It doesn't mean thats its some half baked shot in the dark corroborated by some 12 yr olds My First Scientist kit.  If you can disprove it you're welcome to do so but pointing out that it is a theory does not invalidate it or even really cast doubt because it doesn't mean theory in the sense of Lens theory of what The Stones were trying to do with their mid 70s releases, it means a tried and tested notion that you are welcome to dispute, which is the beauty of science, were it to be settled as fact would kind of mean the death of science because science is ever expanding, its building upon available understanding, theory in science doesn't mean 'some bollocks we dreamt up that may or may not be correct, we haven't really thought about it'.

Gravity is "only a theory". 

[Len Cnut]

10 minutes ago, Dazey said:

So by definition anything buried beneath them has to be older. Think about it. 

Gravity is "only a theory". 

Everythings only a theory by their particular mode of thinking. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

6 minutes ago, Dazey said:

So by definition anything buried beneath them has to be older. Think about it. 

Not necessarily, especially when you factor in something like the flood. Flooding waters are going to move rocks, sediment, and many other things all around. 

As far as the structure goes, for sake of arguement, if it was Atlantis, it doesn't mean it was built by them. They could have found it as some sort of natural phenomenon, and they just inhabited it. But I'm just speculating here of course. Again I'm not saying it IS Atlantis or that Atlantis did in fact exist. I'm just saying this is the most compelling evidence for it that I've ever seen. 

[Dazey]

[Iron MikeyJ]

If that's how you feel, then why even bother responding to me? 

[Iron MikeyJ]

So in the thought of getting this thread off of Atlantis, I just want to say I was VERY wrong earlier in this thread in regards to the Jews. I have reflected upon that quite a lot, and I better understand the role they play in salvation history (which is quite beautiful). 

Everything that happened was a part of THE plan, and they have an important role to play in the future. I'll just leave it at that.

[DieselDaisy]

I'll tell you something about history and revisionism. For years smug modern (1960s onwards) academics said of Richard Duke of Gloucester/III that ''he wasn't hunchback and that is Tudor propaganda to make him look bad as deformed people were meant to be evil in those days; Shakespeare assassinated him and Lawrence Olivier finished the job''. Then in 2012 excavators exhumed his skeleton. Guess what? Severe scoliosis of the spine was present!

 

[SoulMonster]

26 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

So in the thought of getting this thread off of Atlantis, I just want to say I was VERY wrong earlier in this thread in regards to the Jews.

You are very wrong regarding Atlantis, too. And science. I can't think of anything you are right on, right now.

[Len Cnut]

35 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

So in the thought of getting this thread off of Atlantis, I just want to say I was VERY wrong earlier in this thread in regards to the Jews. I have reflected upon that quite a lot, and I better understand the role they play in salvation history (which is quite beautiful). 

Everything that happened was a part of THE plan, and they have an important role to play in the future. I'll just leave it at that.

And that thought never occurred to you before?  

[Len Cnut]

29 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I'll tell you something about history and revisionism. For years smug modern (1960s onwards) academics said of Richard Duke of Gloucester/III that ''he wasn't hunchback and that is Tudor propaganda to make him look bad as deformed people were meant to be evil in those days; Shakespeare assassinated him and Lawrence Olivier finished the job''. Then in 2012 excavators exhumed his skeleton. Guess what? Severe scoliosis of the spine was present!

 

They found him in a safeways car park didn't they?   Fuckin' mental innit, one day you're cock of the walk only to end up with Mums wheeling trolleys over you on their way in for 2 for 1 beans and fish fingers.  The Battle of whatisface, my kingdom for a horse and all that.  Bosworth?  So that was where a Safeways is now...you'd think it'd be fuckin' listed or something.

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

They found him in a safeways car park didn't they?   Fuckin' mental innit, one day you're cock of the walk only to end up with Mums wheeling trolleys over you on their way in for 2 for 1 beans and fish fingers.  The Battle of whatisface, my kingdom for a horse and all that.  Bosworth?  So that was where a Safeways is now...you'd think it'd be fuckin' listed or something.

It was dragged to Leicester from Bosworth Field and buried without pomp at Greyfriars, a Franciscan Friary, destroyed during the Dissolution of the Monasteries. 

Your post reminds me of this from Hamlet,

Quote

To what base uses we may return,

Horatio. Why may not imagination

trace the noble dust of Alexander till

he find it stopping a bunghole?

...

Alexander died, Alexander was

buried, Alexander returneth to dust,

the dust is earth, of earth we make

loam—and why of that loam,

whereto he was converted, might

they not stop a beer barrel?

Imperious Caesar, dead and turned to clay,

Might stop a hole to keep the wind away.

that that earth, which kept the world in awe,

Should patch a wall t' expel the winter’s flaw!

 

 

Edited November 10, 2018 by DieselDaisy

[Iron MikeyJ]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

You are very wrong regarding Atlantis, too. And science. I can't think of anything you are right on, right now.

As I've stated multiple times here, I'm not saying THAT IS ATLANTIS. I'm just saying it's an interesting thought. I dont know why that is so wrong? 

As for science, I dont see them as one vs the other type of relationship (science vs religion). I see them as actually telling the same story from different perspectives, so a decent understanding of both helps you see the picture more clearly. Besides Catholic schools teach things like evolution, so again we dont view science as the enemy. We actually embrace it. 

Which I know you will probably pick this post apart and find something to disagree with, and that's ok. We dont need to be enemies Soul. 

23 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

And that thought never occurred to you before?  

I kinda viewed them more as turning their backs on Christ I suppose. I can admit it when I'm wrong.

[SoulMonster]

38 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

As for science, I dont see them as one vs the other type of relationship (science vs religion). I see them as actually telling the same story from different perspectives, so a decent understanding of both helps you see the picture more clearly. Besides Catholic schools teach things like evolution, so again we dont view science as the enemy. We actually embrace it. 

You don't embrace science when it contradicts your beliefs!  Did you embrace the many C14 studies that indicated that The Shroud of Turin cannot possible be the death shroud of Jesus? Nope. Do you embrace all the studies that indicate that healing is no better than placebo? Nope. And there are many other examples of you cherry-picking from science only when it strengthens your religious delusions and reject all scientific findings that don't.

And this notion that science and religion can coexist without any problems is only true if religion entirely stops attempting to explain how the material world works. Basically, if we can reduce religion's sphere of influence to ONLY deal with those phenomena that have no affect on the world we live in, then these two things can live together harmoniously. But that would also mean that religion would be entirely trivialized and pointless… which sounds good to me.

[Dazey]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

You don't embrace science when it contradicts your beliefs!  Did you embrace the many C14 studies that indicated that The Shroud of Turin cannot possible be the death shroud of Jesus? Nope. Do you embrace all the studies that indicate that healing is no better than placebo? Nope. And there are many other examples of you cherry-picking from science only when it strengthens your religious delusions and reject all scientific findings that don't.

And this notion that science and religion can coexist without any problems is only true if religion entirely stops attempting to explain how the material world works. Basically, if we can reduce religion's sphere of influence to ONLY deal with those phenomena that have no affect on the world we live in, then these two things can live together harmoniously. But that would also mean that religion would be entirely trivialized and pointless… which sounds good to me.

Problem is that most US conservatives think that C14 is a Hispanic street gang.

[Iron MikeyJ]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

You don't embrace science when it contradicts your beliefs!  Did you embrace the many C14 studies that indicated that The Shroud of Turin cannot possible be the death shroud of Jesus? Nope. Do you embrace all the studies that indicate that healing is no better than placebo? Nope. And there are many other examples of you cherry-picking from science only when it strengthens your religious delusions and reject all scientific findings that don't.

And this notion that science and religion can coexist without any problems is only true if religion entirely stops attempting to explain how the material world works. Basically, if we can reduce religion's sphere of influence to ONLY deal with those phenomena that have no affect on the world we live in, then these two things can live together harmoniously. But that would also mean that religion would be entirely trivialized and pointless… which sounds good to me.

Well as far the shroud of turin goes, for one, it's never been a church approved miracle. For two, the carbon dating that was used on it was flawed to begin with. The piece they cut to test was from the edge of the shroud, which the edges had been used to display it for centuries. So even if it were authentic, it was tied together with fabric that was available from the time it was discovered, and for centuries after. Which will of course have an impact on the carbon dating that was used. In order to get an authentic sample (that hasn't been tampered with by over the years), you would have to cut a piece out of the actual image. Which the church just isnt willing to do, because if deemed authentic, they would have cut a piece from the face of Jesus, effectively ruining it. Which that's a risk they are not willing to do, just to satisfy nonbelievers. 

Which I'm sure that answer wont satisfy you, and that's fine. But that IS the reason why further dating hasn't been done on it. Plus there are other aspects to the shroud that remain "shrouded" in mystery, but I digress... But again, it doesn't really matter because it isnt an approved miracle. Beyond that, God doesn't want to show himself fully to mankind until the 2nd coming. He wants humanity to have FAITH not proof. He wants us to CHOOSE him by our own free will. If we do so out of FACTS or out of proof it effects our free will. Which I know, you will just dismiss this all, and that's fine. 

I still dont understand why so many atheists like to spend time trying to "debunk" religion? Dont you have anything better to do with your time. As others have said, I dont like U2, but I'm not going to go to a U2 page and bash U2. I have better things to do...