Conspiracy Theories and Athiesm

[Donace]

@ riddarhusetgal hit me up with the name of that book, sounds intriguing.

If you saw a car 4000 years how would you describe it? How could you describe something if you could see 1000 years into the future?

Forget that even define a 'cow' so a person who has never seen a cow knows what it is. Now get 10 more definitions of it from 10 other people. They all vary and therein lies the confusion. Its hard to come to a recognised def. for what is in front of you so how would you define a concept or thing that has not yet come in to being.

 

[Gablablah]

When people try to reconcile ancient books and beliefs with reality, they count the hits and ignore the misses. A person who prays for hundreds of different things is bound to have some of their life events fit with their prayers, and of course it will be those events that prove what they believe is true. All the things that didn't happen can be easily brushed away dozens of different ways (God doesn't answer all prayers, he has a different plan, our human understanding is inferior etc.), but of course when something does line up then they'll have no trouble accepting the human level of understanding and knowing that it really was God's will.

Humans seek patterns and will find them wherever they can. Horoscopes for example - there was a test done with a group of people where they were all given astrological readings about their personalities. Each person was surprised how accurately it described them and how personal it was - a true testament to the power of astrology in their minds. Then they were asked to look at other people's readings, and it turned out they had all been given identical readings. The human mind has a sometimes faulty way of finding meaning in things.

The book of revelations is nothing more than one more chapter in a book written by people who understood very little about the world. Literally thousands of different events could take place in modern times and somebody creative enough could reconcile it with Revelations. Keep in mind that Revelations is part of a book that has shed the following wisdom upon us:

- The earth is less than 10,000 years old, which is false (sorry creationists, but it's really time to crack a few science books)
- Not believing in a bodily resurrection is punishable by an infinite period of torment
- Every single species of animal that exists (currently about 1.4 million known species) descended from a single group of animals kept aboard one boat, which was built in response to the largest mass murder in history, committed by the being who supposedly made everything in the first place with foreknowledge of exactly what would happen

The list continues, but the point is really why in the world would you even try to figure things out about the world from the book of revelations?

 

[TheDean]

I find it elementary how you express religion and religious beliefs as a way of discrediting the Book of Revelation. Would it not be much more beneficial to argue on actual points from Revelation rather than escaping with the straw man of religion? Are you so shallow as to not realize that the Bible has been misrepresented for ages? The topic is not about religion but rather the Book of Revelation. I am not in the lease bit surprised as so many people choose to take this stance rather than work off the actual source material itself.

You got me all wrong man. I mean come on the Book of Revelation is like the ultimate Exit Pop. They jack the old Jewish dude's LP add some innovative copy and imagery, hit the short tails like "forgiveness" "love" and go balls to the wall broad matching, and BOOM exponential conversion rate.

I dig it.

 

[Midas Touch]

OK, here's the other problem about Creation, it's antimatter.

This magazine had about 10 pages of the physicists whining about the fact that there are not equal parts of matter and antimatter. Which is a flaw in their "Big Bang" theory. Even though they KNOW that when matter and antimatter come into contact with each other both molecules disappear and release 100% their energy.

If there were equal parts of antimatter to the matter in the universe NOTHING WOULD EXIST and they would not be pondering this!! LOL!!

Here's the Mag:

Let me explain the "Better than Gold!" that I wrote on that back in 1985. This magazine has one particular article in it that is of GREAT concern to me and most other "Men" that I know. I'll post up the pic of the article in here and I think that it will explain everything. (Direct your attention to "Preserving Potency".)

I figured that I would keep a copy of this article to show my doctor if the day should ever come that I need the surgery myself.

Here's a page from the antimatter article with the scientists that riddarhusetgal was referring to:

Mainly figured I'd share the "Keep the Dick Working" info, it was just by happenstance that the rest tied into this thread.



Sincerely,

MT

 

[TheDean]

Midas, this isn't the school library microfiche for chrissake could you attach that shit instead.

 

[erect]

Here's a question to ponder, could those things have really been predictions? Or is it just that humans have been thinking on these things for so long that subconsciously, or even consciously for some, we have created the circumstances of the predictions? Had these earlier "visions/foretellings" not been around would the world be the same as it is now. Might these things have been the architects of their own predictions by way of transference?

Many things are self fulfilling prophecies ... Revelations is very much one. I remember as a kid seeing digital numbers appearing on gas pumps and my mom tried to convince me it was the mark of the beast. To this day, she's still reaching for Revelations fulfillment (eg. Obama is the antichrist).

The point is, everyone is looking for signs that what they believe in is true, science believers included. When someone sees an inch, they take a mile. It's funny really as everyone is pushing their agenda on everyone else while blaming the opposition for doing exactly that.

Nice formatting on your posts, it's very much improved!



You guys should check out "Knowing" ... just saw it last night and, as a believer, I'm open minded enough to think that our intelligent designer is an alien. Hell, I can't see how people would disagree since he's not from earth obviously.

 

[slayerment]

The book of revelations is nothing more than one more chapter in a book written by people who understood very little about the world. Literally thousands of different events could take place in modern times and somebody creative enough could reconcile it with Revelations. Keep in mind that Revelations is part of a book that has shed the following wisdom upon us:

- The earth is less than 10,000 years old, which is false (sorry creationists, but it's really time to crack a few science books)
- Not believing in a bodily resurrection is punishable by an infinite period of torment
- Every single species of animal that exists (currently about 1.4 million known species) descended from a single group of animals kept aboard one boat, which was built in response to the largest mass murder in history, committed by the being who supposedly made everything in the first place with foreknowledge of exactly what would happen

The list continues, but the point is really why in the world would you even try to figure things out about the world from the book of revelations?

The 3 examples listed there are not Biblical teachings - they are church teachings. Show me where in the Bible it says the earth is less than 10,000 years old? I've never read that or even reached that conclusion. These are teachings by the Church, not the Bible. The Bible doesn't teach Adam was the first man on the planet, it teaches he was the first man of his RACE. Go back, read the text and do your homework.

It's a shame that so many people think that the church teachings are Biblical teachings. Can we cut the bullshit and simply talk about the actual text of the Bible? Can we leave out the religious misrepresentations and for once actually discuss the subject matter? Or does actually reading and thinking about the Bible require too much work for this dumbed down world?

For people knowing so much about the Bible and the Book of Revelation there seems to be very little actual talk on it.

 

[Midas Touch]

Midas, this isn't the school library microfiche for chrissake could you attach that shit instead.

I do apologize for that.


I won't throw up anymore scans full sized.


Sincerely,

MT

 

[Deliguy]

Science says that matter/energy can be neither created or destroyed.

If something can be neither created nor destroyed the only logical conclusion is that it is INFINITE.

In other words, it has always existed.

Don't mean to belittle your argument but you just kind of nulled it with that statement. Science proved that matter can't be created or destroyed. In fact it was declared a scientific law. Then quantum mechanics developed and proved that not only can matter be created and destroyed but it happens all the time. All particles at random times can just disappear then reappear somewhere else. There's a lot of theories about where they go but the phenom became the basis for a new quantum physics theory of Antimatter. BTW this isn't some kind of brand new news, the law of matter being created and destroyed has been long since disproven and the theory of antimatter is now the widely accepted. Sad to say but those textbooks we had in school that we based all our knowledge on were dead wrong. So to say science is absolute and everything else is wrong is to undefine science itself.

 

[Deliguy]

The book of revelations is nothing more than one more chapter in a book written by people who understood very little about the world. Literally thousands of different events could take place in modern times and somebody creative enough could reconcile it with Revelations. Keep in mind that Revelations is part of a book that has shed the following wisdom upon us:

- The earth is less than 10,000 years old, which is false (sorry creationists, but it's really time to crack a few science books)
- Not believing in a bodily resurrection is punishable by an infinite period of torment
- Every single species of animal that exists (currently about 1.4 million known species) descended from a single group of animals kept aboard one boat, which was built in response to the largest mass murder in history, committed by the being who supposedly made everything in the first place with foreknowledge of exactly what would happen

The list continues, but the point is really why in the world would you even try to figure things out about the world from the book of revelations?

huh? What bible did you read? I'm hoping none because as far as I know none of that is in the bible. I think you're confusing the actual bible with religious beliefs.

 

[Deliguy]

Sorry, but that is nutso conspiracy theory at its finest. Book and exact text for those?

::emp::

It's actually common knowledge in Christianity. I'm not one to throw wikipedia entries or other sources you can discredit (you an always google it) but its fairly factual and not a theory. All the new age bibles now just say the number 666 but if you find an older bible(borrow your grandpas) most will either list the formula instead or have a reference to the appendex in its place or simply just say something like "The lord gave me a number. That number was the name of the beast." I understand though with all the hype behind it why people think the number 666 isn't so new. I'm also sure thats why people are so up in arms these days about the number as a representation of the antichrist where no other time in history has the # had the stigma, even the more religiously oppressed historical times. Yep its crazy to think about but the # 666 is new not old.

 

[Gablablah]

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1:27 (day 6) - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created them.

In between those verses you'll find no mention of the billions of years of evolution leading up to modern man. Is the rational conclusion a) The Bible just doesn't mention it and instead presents a day-by-day creation that somehow represents the earth's natural history despite being in a completely wrong order, or b) The genesis account is wrong

Hell:

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone believing into Him should not perish, but have everlasting life

John 3:17 - For God did not send His Son into the world that He might judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

John 3:18 - The one believing into Him is not condemned; but the one not believing has already been condemned, for he has not believed into the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Matthew 25:41 - Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels

You'd have to disregard a lot of stuff to think the Bible doesn't teach that nonbelievers go to hell.

As for Noah's ark? Read the damn story. It says what it says. It either happened or it didn't. If it didn't, then an event in the Bible is incorrect, which refutes the whole "divinely inspired" claim it rests upon.

 

[BlueYonder]

As an example of this, look at Star Trek for instance. It was created and aired for only one season back in the late 1960's yet look at what it showed us back then.

Star Trek TOS aired for three seasons, from 1966 to 1968. (TSK, TSK)

You will find whatever conspiracy theories please you, in any fictional work, such as Star Trek and the bible. The mind is very original in its ability to find relevance in various musings.

Now that I have your attention, Abraham, the father of the Judeo-Christian religions was an unfit parent and possibly schizophrenic. He claimed God said to take the kid up the mountain and slash his throat to show his utter devotion. Abe does as he's told, and God says "never mind" at the last sec, before the kid is murdered. Yikes!

Nowdays we take kids away from parents like this. Just saying.

 

[Deliguy]

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1:27 (day 6) - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created them.

In between those verses you'll find no mention of the billions of years of evolution leading up to modern man. Is the rational conclusion a) The Bible just doesn't mention it and instead presents a day-by-day creation that somehow represents the earth's natural history despite being in a completely wrong order, or b) The genesis account is wrong

Hell:

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone believing into Him should not perish, but have everlasting life

John 3:17 - For God did not send His Son into the world that He might judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

John 3:18 - The one believing into Him is not condemned; but the one not believing has already been condemned, for he has not believed into the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Matthew 25:41 - Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels

You'd have to disregard a lot of stuff to think the Bible doesn't teach that nonbelievers go to hell.

As for Noah's ark? Read the damn story. It says what it says. It either happened or it didn't. If it didn't, then an event in the Bible is incorrect, which refutes the whole "divinely inspired" claim it rests upon.

So you're taking back your statement saying the bible said all those things and changing it to, you must assume? Then you proceed to make the assumptions that A) The bible has a solid timeframe. Where one day to god is 24 hours because the earth took 24 hours to spin before he even created it. While even at the time of II Peter it was noted that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Which even through the older translations can actually vary, all we know is a day to God is NOT an earth day and when the bible says he took 6 days to create it meant ANYTHING other than 168 hrs. Yes even through interpreting the bible it is entirely plausible that man evolved. You need to reinquisite where you got the number 10,000 years from because it wasn't the bible it was probably in the whole separate bout between creationist and evolutionists and has no actual place in biblical discussions. B) That all life evolved from the animals on Noahs ark. That's honestly a baffling statement. Not all the animals were on Noahs ark (sea creatures, bugs, birds etc etc) and correct me if i'm wrong but don't evolutionists believe that all our current species evolved from the sea? The story also doesn't say WHAT flooded. Just because a small corner of the earth where man resided flooded doesn't mean the entire earth flooded. Nor does it specify that. Remember, when the bible says the Earth it means the ground, dirt, mountains not the globe (they still thought it was flat if you recall).

You don't have to interpret it any particular way to understand it. You should just read the bible itself to get your biblical history lesson instead of just watching vegitale toons or wherever you got yours from because you're saying stuff it clearly doesn't say or even imply and you're interpreting it in ways i think even the christian channel nutcases wouldn't go as far as to say.

I understand where you're coming from though. You're saying the book of Revelations is bullshit because it's part of the bible and the bible is bullshit because creationists believe in the bible and creationists are bullshit because evolution is true. So by that logic if you believe in evolution you're not allowed to believe anything said in the book of Revelations. That's actually totally reasonable. Misled but reasonable and hence our discussion

 

[Midas Touch]

Star Trek TOS aired for three seasons, from 1966 to 1968. (TSK, TSK)

Thanks for the correction.


Sincerely,

MT

 

[erect]

It's easy to disprove something when you set out to do so, you must open your mind a bit.

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1:27 (day 6) - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created them.

So ... how long is a day for God? You assume it's set by Earth's rotation.

Hell:

...

You'd have to disregard a lot of stuff to think the Bible doesn't teach that nonbelievers go to hell.

Not believing in a bodily resurrection is punishable by an infinite period of torment

But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows.

Hell is kind of an abstract and the new testament teaches different levels of hell (punishment) as well as heaven. Eternal punishment isn't in the cards for everyone. Some even feel that Jews will go to hell thanks to John 3:16 ... I couldn't disagree more.

On that note: it's interesting that our Hebrew bretheren on this board NEVER get into religious threads.

I also don't believe the "infinite" side of hell ... but that's a different conversation to have.

As for Noah's ark? Read the damn story. It says what it says. It either happened or it didn't. If it didn't, then an event in the Bible is incorrect, which refutes the whole "divinely inspired" claim it rests upon.

Wow, so German Shepards and Labs couldn't have evolved from the same dog kept on an ark? Is it possible that all 300,000 species of beatles evolved from 2? C'mon, athiests are into evolution aren't they.

You take the bible literally and disprove it ... that's not how it works.

For the record, I believe the bible is flawed from the get-go because not a single word was written by God or JC. Divine inspiration, perhaps, but not written. That JC was most likely literate and doesn't have a book of his own really speaks loudly for the political corruption of everything.

Hell, I even hate it when people quote me out of context .. imagine how G must feel right about now.

 

[slayerment]

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1:27 (day 6) - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created them.

In between those verses you'll find no mention of the billions of years of evolution leading up to modern man. Is the rational conclusion a) The Bible just doesn't mention it and instead presents a day-by-day creation that somehow represents the earth's natural history despite being in a completely wrong order, or b) The genesis account is wrong

Just focusing on your first point, I am interested where you get that the earth is less than 10,000 years old? I hear everyone say this and I've never even come remotely close to finding this Biblically.

If you are implying it's from the word "day" I would find that completely absurd as that word can mean many different things throughout the Bible and even the Hebrew itself is rendered as: Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon .

Is it the time period Adam lived? Where are you getting this?

 

[Gablablah]

Ok, the whole meaning of "day" apologetic is a weak argument. No the word "yom" didn't necessarily have to mean a 24-hour day; it could refer to a period of time. BUT context certainly matters. For instance - saying something such as "the evening and the morning were the first day" is pretty important. Evening and morning are earth-spinning concepts based on the rising and setting of the sun, are they not? If genesis days were not regular days then it's completely nonsensical and outright misleading to speak of "the evening and the morning," which are exactly what signify the passing of an earth day.

But hell, let's allow a stretching of the word "day" anyway. Genealogies between Adam and us, while not definite, don't allow for more than 10,000 years of time. Taking into account the age of the earth, about 4.5 billion years, we've still got roughly 4.5 billion years to account for before the creation of Adam. If we're to reconcile this with the meaning of "day", each day would have to be hundreds of millions of years long. There are serious problems with this.

Here's a chronological timeline of the genesis account
"day" 1 - created earth, created light
"day" 2 - created firmament, divided waters in sky from waters on earth
"day" 3 - appearance of dry land, grass herbs and trees
"day" 4 - lights in the firmament - stars, two great lights - sun and moon
"day" 5 - water animals
"day" 6 - land animals, humans

Even if we're allowing for millions-of-years-long "days", we have
- plants existing for millions of years before there's a sun
- plants existing for millions of years before there are animals
- stars coming into existence after planet earth

Ecosystems are intermeshed systems where plants depend on animals and animals on plants and animals on other animals. Plants and animals evolve together. And of course the sun thing is pretty obvious. An expansion of the word "day" only makes things worse. Not to mention the genesis account already doesn't fit at all with the scientific history of the earth.

Here's a rough chronological timeline of earth. Not meant as complete, but in the right order - first stars, first galaxies, our solar system, life on Earth, simple animals, arthropods, fish, land plants, insects, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, dinosaurs, the homo genus, modern man.

No matter how you want to "interpret" it, Genesis is completely nonsensical and has been embarrassingly refuted by multiple fields of science.

 

[keliix06]

"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

This was written by Albert Einstein and sums up the whole god thing to me so perfect. I am open to almost anything when it comes to the idea of a god. This is because we as humans, can only hope to scratch the surface of understanding when it comes to the universe and our existance.

Einstein wasn't talking about "God" in the tradition sense of an omniscient being. Hawking either. None of them believed in what people call God today. "God" is only used as a metaphor.

That being said I'm agnostic, but not because I think there might be a God. Only because so far it hasn't been proven there isn't. I don't believe there is any chance there is one, but until it can be proven I don't see how a rational person can be an atheist.

 

[Deliguy]

Here's a chronological timeline of the genesis account
"day" 1 - created earth, created light
"day" 2 - created firmament, divided waters in sky from waters on earth
"day" 3 - appearance of dry land, grass herbs and trees
"day" 4 - lights in the firmament - stars, two great lights - sun and moon
"day" 5 - water animals
"day" 6 - land animals, humans

Once again you need to actually read the bible before quoting it.
To be more exact it goes:
Day 1: The heavens, the earth, light and darkness.
Day 2: Heaven
Day 3: Dry land, the seas, and vegetation.
Day 4: The sun, the moon and the stars.
Day 5: Living creatures in the water, birds in the air.
Day 6: Land animals and people.
Day 7: God "rested".

God created light before he created vegetation, this obviously implies a source of light other than the Sun (i'd imagine the big bang probably left a lot of radiation light for awhile). Just because we now get our light from the sun doesn't mean the "vegetation" didn't have light. Secondly, many plants don't require photosynthesis and with the polar imbalances of a fairly newly created planet it wouldn't be unreasonable for early plants to be as reliant on the sun. Lastly, plants don't need animals to survive on the earth. In fact of all the species of plants on this planet it's only a small percentage that rely on animals to spread their seeds and co2 already exists everywhere even in soil and the atmosphere. They don't need us to produce it for them. The order of the early days actually coincides a lot with the theory of evolution and supports it more than disputes it. You just gotta keep an open mind rather than looking for a reason to hold your beliefs.

I didn't mean for this to be another atheist vs creationist discussion though. I just wanted to know what you guys thought about the predictions in the book of revelations. It's really quite a different discussion.