Symbianize Forum

Most of our features and services are available only to members, so we encourage you to login or register a new account. Registration is free, fast and simple. You only need to provide a valid email. Being a member you'll gain access to all member forums and features, post a message to ask question or provide answer, and share or find resources related to mobile phones, tablets, computers, game consoles, and multimedia.

All that and more, so what are you waiting for, click the register button and join us now! Ito ang website na ginawa ng pinoy para sa pinoy!

Atheists and Agnostics Meeting Place

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nood nalang kayo nang mga episodes nang BBC Horizon, mas pina simple nang mga leading scientist yung explanation about anything related to science.

Recent documentary about multiverse is Season 54 episode 13 Which universe are We in?

Yung panonood nang video documentaries hindi naman yan nakaka bobo, isipin nyu nalang na parang nonood kayo nang TED talks.
 
pa tambay po

I'm a christian pero mahilig talaga ako sa astronomy lately hindi ako makuntento kung ano ang paniniwala ko ngayon, meron lang ako katanungan..

madaming nadidiskubreng planeta na kagaya ng earth ayon sa NASA (which means ability of the planet to host a life) about 10 - 15 light years away from earth (will take 100,000 years to get there by the way) may possibility na may mga ibang species din dun correct? does it mean na same God din ang winworship ng mga ibang species sa ibang planeta, may jesus christ din ba sa kanila? pls enlighten me.

parang nawawala ako sa paniniwala ko hehe.
Based on the sheer number of planets even in our immediate Milky Way Galaxy, scientists are optimistic the subject of finding life on other planets is not a question of if but when. Assuming that such big number would yield some intelligent civilizations comparable to what we have, it is no wonder many like you and other big-name scientists and prominent sci-fi writers find this idea a treasure trove of possibilities.

At the top of the food chain of these possibilities would be superadvanced civilizations far ahead of us humans that their very citizens have this stage of science that allows them to manipulate every facet of physical laws to their advantage. One such knowledge, the ability to take advantage of extra dimensions and wormholes (assuming our theories about them are all true) would make such civilizations no different from any best concepts of gods we could come up with. To such beings, time and space offer no impediment of any kind. They could manipulate every form of matter or energy at their most fundamental level at will that they could power anything they could envision without any trouble at all. The essential question, however, is this: would these beings be acting alone individually or will there be some form of federation or association limiting how much they could interact with and intervene in the affairs of other civilizations, a concept well explored in the Star Trek series. If no interfering is allowed, what are the punishments for such renegade superior beings? In mythologies, this dilemma is well exploited in the story of Prometheus (and other similarly conceived rebel gods) who defied the will of his fellow divine beings to help humans on their way to civilization, and we all know what his fellow gods did to him. Perhaps Yahweh/Jehovah is one such rebel superior being who dared interfere with a lower human civilization, got found out, and banished elsewhere for unlawful interference, reason why he's been absent in our affairs for so long?

All the other possibilities could be entertained: fair civilizations that have no concept of gods, equally superstitious civilizations almost to the level of human societies, perhaps much lower, socially confused and depressed toad civilizations that managed to conceive of their own crucified savior toad to pay for the "sins" of its toad denizens.

Another possibility you could consider, of course, is the idea of simulated worlds, just discussed here recently.

I would suggest, at this point, some science sites that you might want to check out if they're to your taste and liking.

For everything science and individual fields, my first go-to site is this science aggregation site. Archeology, Quantum Physics, Biology, and Astronomy, etc., are well represented there.

For science in-depth, Quanta it is for me. For substantive discussion of any field under the sun, Aeon and Nautilus would not disappoint.

In fact, Aeon has a long list of discussions about alien civilizations. One is found here, while the general search function yielded this.
 
Last edited:
Based on the sheer number of planets even in our immediate Milky Way Galaxy, scientists are optimistic the subject of finding life on other planets is not a question of if but when. Assuming that such big number would yield some intelligent civilizations comparable to what we have, it is no wonder many like you and other big-name scientists and prominent sci-fi writers find this idea a treasure trove of possibilities.

At the top of the food chain of this possibilities would be superadvanced civilizations far ahead of us humans that their very citizens had this stage of science that allows them to manipulate every facet of physical laws to their advantage. One such knowledge, the ability to take advantage of extra dimensions and wormholes (assuming our theories about them are all true) would make such civilizations no different from any best concepts of gods we could come up with. To such beings, time and space offer no impediment of any kind. They could manipulate every form of matter or energy at their most fundamental level at will that they could power anything they could envision without any trouble at all. The essential question, however, is this: would these beings be acting alone individually or will there be some form of federation or association limiting how much they could interact with and intervene in the affairs of other civilizations, a concept well explored in the Star Trek series. If no interfering is allowed, what are the punishments for such renegade superior beings? In mythologies, this dilemma is well exploited in the story of Prometheus and other similarly conceived rebel gods who defied the will of his fellow divine beings to help humans on their way to civilization, and we all know what his fellow gods did to him. Perhaps Yahweh/Jehovah is one such rebel superior being who dared interfere with a lower human civilization, got found out, and banished elsewhere for unlawful interference, reason why he's been absent in our affairs for so long?

All the other possibilities could be entertained: fair civilizations that have no concept of gods, equally superstitious civilizations almost to the level of human societies, perhaps much lower, socially confused and depressed toad civilizations that managed to conceive of their own crucified savior toad to pay for the "sins" of its toad denizens.

Another possibility you could consider, of course, is the idea of simulated worlds, just discussed here recently.

I would suggest, at this point, some science sites that you might want to check out if they're to your taste and liking.

For everything science and individual fields, my first go-to site is this science aggregation site. Archeology, Quantum Physics, Biology, and Astronomy, etc., are well represented there.

For science in-depth, Quanta it is for me. For substantive discussion of any field under the sun, Aeon and Nautilus would not disappoint.

In fact, Aeon has a long list of discussions about alien civilizations. One is found here, while the general search function yielded this.

thank you for the interesting insight about my question i was wondering the same thing too that there are far more advanced civilization than us, if there are super advanced than us we're just like ant's to them apparently, what we do to the ants here on earth? we ignore them, crushed them (i hope there are no advanced civilization that hostile) from what i read there are types of civilization right? we are a type 0 right now.

Star Trek's Prime Directive - i like this idea.

my second question is: are we capable of being moral even without the bible? are atheist capable of exercising right morals without the guidance of the bible? where did the learn to be morally right?

- - - Updated - - -

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting read: http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/h/hight-technology_in_the_bible.html

A close encounter of primitive people and super advanced warped civilizations
 
Last edited:
thank you for the interesting insight about my question i was wondering the same thing too that there are far more advanced civilization than us, if there are super advanced than us we're just like ant's to them apparently, what we do to the ants here on earth? we ignore them, crushed them (i hope there are no advanced civilization that hostile) from what i read there are types of civilization right? we are a type 0 right now.

Star Trek's Prime Directive - i like this idea.

my second question is: are we capable of being moral even without the bible? are atheist capable of exercising right morals without the guidance of the bible? where did the learn to be morally right?

If there are hostile alien civilizations out there ready to step on us the way we do to ants now, we could only hope these belligerent aliens are counterbalanced by the existence of more powerful benign aliens who look after the interest of intergalactic peace in every pocket of the universe. And more importantly, we had better wished these benign alien powers have outposts watching over us especially right now that we are trying to reach out to deep space for other exocivilizations.

About Morality

We must keep in mind that the idea that morality only started with the emergence of the bible is a claim made only by hardline Christian fanatics—and only in largely Christian nations. Before anyone could fall deep into that idea and find it hard to extricate oneself from that misconception, one must ask how did humans fare eons ago before the bible came along? Are they all in fact “sinners”—amoral—as our hardline Christians would have us believe? Far from it. Let’s go historical, anthropological, and archeological—even biological.

One thing that strikes non-Christians about the claim that morality only starts with the bible is its utter conceit:

  1. Historical, Anthropological, Archeological: although it is true that primitive societies—hunters and gatherers—indulged in gleefully bashing the heads of groups and clans outside of their own for sport in some parts of the world, it is now confirmed that there were human groupings who chose to coexist with others peacefully and cooperatively without even the benefit of “modern” perspective: there is a tribe in Amazon, the Pirahã people, hunters and gatherers in Paleolithic/Neolithic Japan, pygmies in Africa, etc. It is counterintuitive to the mainstream idea that the source of belligerence is difference—in clan, race, appearance, culture, mores, etc.
  2. Historical-Philosophical: the ten commandments so cherished and brandished by Christians are not the first to recognize and address actions unbecoming of men worthy of a decent place in society, not to mention the question of its actual historicity. But without going to that, many similar historical artifacts predate the ten commandments by hundreds if not thousands of years: the Law of Tehut by King Menes of Egypt (5200 years ago); the Code of Ur-Nammu of Mesopotamia (almost 4000 years ago); and the Babylonian code better known as the Code of Hammurabi (around 3750 years ago). We won’t even mention the moral codes embedded in the Vedas of India which go way even older. And so-called Jesus Christ’s core message of loving one another—the Golden Mean—is a principle widely prevalent in Asian cultures long before the bible came along.
  3. Philosophical: morality or its near-equivalent, justice, is a concept existing outside of any god or “holy” manuscript. Killing is not right because a god or some precept says so: it is not right precisely because it prohibits the first directive of society: peaceful coexistence, and it is not easy to see firsthand through experience how breaching this at any time would drag everybody to gravitate toward chaos and violence for long stretches of time.
  4. Philosophical: the biblical concept of morality built upon obedience is not a proper morality construct: you do not become moral because you follow orders, you only become an obedient creature. Morality hinges on autonomous decision-making based on experiential and objective rationalizations—of accepting one’s place and duties in the context of society; adding another layer, that of the concept of god, only makes it extraneous and invites personal irresponsibility and unaccountability.
  5. Historical-Philosophical: the establishment of society is an inherently implied social contract: that obligations are expected of any of its members in order to keep the peace within the bounds of its legal territory. Ascribing to any god or any “holy” script the requisites of living together makes people forget their natural place, rights, and obligations in society, a natural source of social apathy, disorientation, confusion, and an inexplicable sense of losing one’s place in society. That is why it took Rosseau and later John Rawls to remind people of this indispensable insight. We must also remember that the bible has no say to the most recent human “moral” innovations: the abolishment of slavery as a global social institution, recognition of human rights, of women’s rights, right to suffrage of women and other classes in society, among many critical other issues.
  6. Biology: the discovery of “love gene,” oxytocin, suggests that humans are inherently predisposed to seek the comforts of society and be cooperative with one another, dispelling the idea that humans are naturally given to violence in any social setting
  7. Philosophical: the necessity of a force of retribution behind morality: Christianity makes us believe that without an ultimate authority of retributive god, inherently violent people would destroy the very foundational fabric of society: yet the idea of social contract makes it unnecessary: individual members of society forego the right to personal vengeance and pass the same initiative to the government and its courts of law so they would take over and address the wrong done to any member as a measure of exacting redress.
  8. Historical: the best and most equitable societies today are those with a prevailing secular and large numbers of atheist populations: the Czech Republic, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, etc. They are also the most peaceful, with less crime among those countries. In contrast, one would mostly find Christian psychotics and criminals inside prisons in many Christian-dominated societies.
 
Last edited:
This is how our thinking works. Hehehehe

Well, anyway, I think I'll have some brief thought on the concept of nothing as previously discussed:

I think that basically it's our historical construction and understanding of "nothing" that is inherently flawed—perhaps misleading would be the better term, even. It's based on the immediate perception of the senses, and when we don't sense anything at all, we had been given to calling it "nothing." If our living ancestors—starting from those one-celled organisms or whatever else—miraculously acquired the capacity to sense all the fields filling all of space from the very beginning, then we wouldn't even give birth to the idea of "nothing" at all, but rather the opposite: space or the universe is full of things even in the form of fields (and remember that fields are more essential forms of being than particles themselves)—no idea of nothing whatsoever, as we would certainly see countless fields locked in eternal interactions. Indeed it might even be true that our first ancestors had that capacity but yanked it out the door (as the first act of critical selection) as distracting them from the more critical task at hand: ensuring survival and focusing instead on those sensory givens that immediately threaten to zap them out of existence. Spacetime itself is assumed to be the field of gravity. Imagine if those ancestor organisms of ours could originally sense even that spacetime field, then what we'd see is an endless rainbow of fields in all their glory, and again, none to give birth to any idea of "nothing."

The gist of the matter is to ask: is it even sensible, given what we now know about the universe, to talk of an absolute nothing? Some scientists have gone on with models of absolute nothing paving the way for the emergence of things, but one wonders where that would really lead us....

- - - Updated - - -

In relation to the above and other things besides, I found the following article to be full of insight about the critical issues under consideration. I have to laugh, though, about the "for beginners" part, because I thought the ideas are too mind-boggling for an easy read.
 
sir stormer,

if there is a blackhole, there is a wormhole right? how does a wormhole form? i can't grasp the concept of bending bending space to take a shortcut going to another galaxy but i know someday we will be able to develop a warp drive generator.
 
sir stormer,

if there is a blackhole, there is a wormhole right? how does a wormhole form? i can't grasp the concept of bending bending space to take a shortcut going to another galaxy but i know someday we will be able to develop a warp drive generator.

The key to the insight that blackholes are wormholes to other parts of the universe—distant or otherwise—and perhaps other universes, is the discovery that the equation for wormholes, ER (after Einstein and Nathan Rosen), is essentially equivalent to the equation for entanglement, EPR (after Einstein again, Boris Podolsky, and yet again, Nathan Rosen): ER = EPR

The surprising insight tells us that the pair production of charged black holes ... leads [not only] to entangled black holes, but also ... to a wormhole.

Susskind and Maldacena envisioned gathering up all the Hawking particles and smashing them together until they collapse into a black hole. That black hole would be entangled, and thus connected via wormhole, with the original black hole.

This insight could be pushed even further by claiming any entangled pair of particles—even particles not ordinarily considered to be black holes, and pairs of particles with different masses or spin, or with charges which aren't opposite—are connected by Planck-scale wormholes. A similar idea was actually first proposed by Friedwardt Winterberg without a violation of quantum mechanical linear superposition of separable states as in the conjecture by Maldacena and Susskind.

The idea leads to a grander conjecture that the geometry of space, time and gravity is determined by entanglement: that spacetime itself emerges from entanglement....

I don't know if this article would help, but it has a simpler take on the whole ER = EPR issue. For a moment, just think of wormholes as spacetime contortions resulting from entanglement that serve as bridges connecting one point in the universe to another point—or, as I said earlier, to another entirely different universe altogether.

- - - Updated - - -

For those others who are not up to mind-bending discussions about nothing, wormholes and blackholes (:)), how about the topic of slowly waning influence of religion in Europe then? Specifically, I'm talking of events like this, which centers on Christianity specifically, but indicates all religions generally in that part of the world....

- - - Updated - - -

But back to the idea of an emergent spacetime: there is, curiously, another development that points to this: the introduction of amplituhedron to simplify the computation of so-called Feynman diagrams, which, at average, would leave one with a pile of yellow papers to compute for particle interactions; the amplituhedron, by comparison, would only require a piece of napkin.

Quanta has a lovely piece about amplituhedron—here.

- - - Updated - - -

I find this graphic piece too irresistible for inclusion here, so here goes:

View attachment 287313
WORMHOLE = ENTANGLEMENT : ER = EPR
 

Attachments

  • wormhole.jpg
    wormhole.jpg
    190.7 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:
The key to the insight that blackholes are wormholes to other parts of the universe—distant or otherwise—and perhaps other universes, is the discovery that the equation for wormholes, ER (after Einstein and Nathan Rosen), is essentially equivalent to the equation for entanglement, EPR (after Einstein again, Boris Podolsky, and yet again, Nathan Rosen): ER = EPR

The surprising insight tells us that the pair production of charged black holes ... leads [not only] to entangled black holes, but also ... to a wormhole.

Susskind and Maldacena envisioned gathering up all the Hawking particles and smashing them together until they collapse into a black hole. That black hole would be entangled, and thus connected via wormhole, with the original black hole.

This insight could be pushed even further by claiming any entangled pair of particles—even particles not ordinarily considered to be black holes, and pairs of particles with different masses or spin, or with charges which aren't opposite—are connected by Planck-scale wormholes. A similar idea was actually first proposed by Friedwardt Winterberg without a violation of quantum mechanical linear superposition of separable states as in the conjecture by Maldacena and Susskind.

The idea leads to a grander conjecture that the geometry of space, time and gravity is determined by entanglement: that spacetime itself emerges from entanglement....

I don't know if this article would help, but it has a simpler take on the whole ER = EPR issue. For a moment, just think of wormholes as spacetime contortions resulting from entanglement that serve as bridges connecting one point in the universe to another point—or, as I said earlier, to another entirely different universe altogether.

- - - Updated - - -

For those others who are not up to mind-bending discussions about nothing, wormholes and blackholes (:)), how about the topic of slowly waning influence of religion in Europe then? Specifically, I'm talking of events like this, which centers on Christianity specifically, but indicates all religions generally in that part of the world....

- - - Updated - - -

But back to the idea of an emergent spacetime: there is, curiously, another development that points to this: the introduction of amplituhedron to simplify the computation of so-called Feynman diagrams, which, at average, would leave one with a pile of yellow papers to compute for particle interactions; the amplituhedron, by comparison, would only require a piece of napkin.

Quanta has a lovely piece about amplituhedron—here.

quite mind blowing insight i don't really know how i can contribute more with that context about blackholes and wormholes hehe. though i'm really curious what lies beyond the event horizon of a blackhole? also i love the idea of time dilation reminds me of interstellar movie when a planet is so close to a blackhole time becomes really really slow. christians keep telling me that 1 day for God could be 1000 days for us, could that be mean that "God" a super advanced human came from a another exoplanet that time is really dilated compared to our time, fascinating idea.

christian thought:

hindi ko maitindihan mga kapwa ko christians, sabi nila mapupunta ka daw sa impyerno kapag gumawa ka ng masama or kung macurious ka sa ibang bagay na hindi naayon sa turo ng bible pero sabi nila may free will ka, two idea's heavily contradicting each other - if God is all powerful, all knowing one he will not care about what we think or what we do or what we think of him otherwise he's not powerful, all knowing. If he can create a planet, galaxy or universe in a snap of his fingers and destroy it in another snap why would he care about what we think, why would he get mad about a simple thing from our feeble minds?
 
Last edited:
quite mind blowing insight i don't really know how i can contribute more with that context about blackholes and wormholes hehe. though i'm really curious what lies beyond the event horizon of a blackhole? also i love the idea of time dilation reminds me of interstellar movie when a planet is so close to a blackhole time becomes really really slow. christians keep telling me that 1 day for God could be 1000 days for us, could that be mean that "God" a super advanced human came from a another exoplanet that time is really dilated compared to our time, fascinating idea.

christian thought:

hindi ko maitindihan mga kapwa ko christians, sabi nila mapupunta ka daw sa impyerno kapag gumawa ka ng masama or kung macurious ka sa ibang bagay na hindi naayon sa turo ng bible pero sabi nila may free will ka, two idea's heavily contradicting each other - if God is all powerful, all knowing one he will not care about what we think or what we do or what we think of him otherwise he's not powerful, all knowing. If he can create a planet in a snap of his fingers why would he care about what we think?

Indeed, and if that "god" also has control over extra dimensions as postulated by string theory, then traversing even blackholes and wormholes would be mere child play to such beings. However, remember that time dilation is a local effect: to us he seems stuck while traversing the wormhole-blackhole-extra dimensional patch of space, but to him everything looks nothing out of the ordinary—"normal." But I am reminded of that comedy sci-fi I just finished working on about Greek gods returning to a vastly different Earth from wrong clock compensation system and they find humans they hardly recognize—or humans who hardly think of them as real. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Indeed, and if that "god" also has control over extra dimensions as postulated by string theory, then traversing even blackholes and wormholes would be mere child play to such beings. However, remember that time dilation is a local effect: to us he seems stuck while traversing the wormhole-blackhole-extra dimensional patch of space, but to him everything looks nothing out of the ordinary—"normal." But I am reminded of that comedy sci-fi I just finished working on about Greek gods returning to a vastly different Earth from wrong clock compensation system and they find humans they hardly recognize—or humans who hardly think of them as real. :lol:

:) stormer pardon me if i steer the topic quite a bit, i just have a question

How can God say, You will love me or you will go to hell and then call that free will?

if God is really a supreme being, he doesn't need a validation for us right?

Unless God literally creates us for the express purpose of immediately punishing you without you ever doing anything and offers redemption only if you believe in him. then that "god" is a douche right?
 
Last edited:
:) stormer pardon me if i steer the topic quite a bit, i just have a question

How can God say, You will love me or you will go to hell and then call that free will?

if God is really a supreme being, he doesn't need a validation for us right?

Unless God literally creates us for the express purpose of immediately punishing you without you ever doing anything and offers redemption only if you believe in him. then that "god" is a douche right?

Yeah, I actually saw you made a late addition to your previous post and I was surprised seeing it. Anyway, I have a detailed post about free will, but I can't seem to find it right away, so in the meantime let me have a quick take of the issue you raised about the subject.

For one, the idea of a god who appears self-seeking and completely controlling is a reflection of the poor formulation of a so-called benevolent creator. Even on the surface, it is easy to see that humans could do better in relationships: parents who encourage their children to independently seek out knowledge of the world and steel themselves against corrupting agents that could destroy them. Parents whose love are totally unconditional, who do not chastise their children to love their parents for no reason at all, but who would be glad to see children making their way in the world whether these children love them back or not. The same with lovers' relationships, one party truly loving the other that he or she is willing to let the other party go if that is the way it is.

Modern values-forming rest on men independently doing their own thinking and weighing of issues that are critical to their place in society. It is hoped that by letting them free to weigh critical issues on their own, they would come around over any specific hurdles that they find along the way. Society benefits from such men immensely who could stand on their own, and credits these men themselves on finding the right balance between themselves and society at large. There is no need to look back and thank anybody. They only have themselves to thank for. Understanding is not automatically taught or impelled. It is self-generated, and no amount of god or devil could do that for them. If they surrender that right, then they would fall for the next charismatic doomsayer out to get their souls and dig deep into their pockets to boot. Free will, if we limit its meaning as being able to choose and deliberate over things that could pose powers over us, is everyone's right and not dependent on any supernatural agent. The man who surrenders his has made himself lower than the dumbest of beasts out there.

And anyway, any discussion of free will necessarily brings us back to its roots in Christian theology: the Original Sin of Adam and Eve after they ate of the Tree of Knowledge: all of which are critical to Christianity, and all of which have no historical or scientific (psychological, etc.) bases and rooted on immoral and indecent philosophical propositions.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I actually saw you made a late addition to your previous post and I was surprised seeing it. Anyway, I have a detailed post about free will, but I can't seem to find it right away, so in the meantime let me have a quick take of the issue you raised about the subject.

For one, the idea of a god who appears self-seeking and completely controlling is a reflection of the poor formulation of a so-called benevolent creator. Even on the surface, it is easy to see that humans could do better in relationships: parents who encourage their children to independently seek out knowledge of the world and steel themselves against corrupting agents that could destroy them. Parents whose love are totally unconditional, who do not chastise their children to love their parents for no reason at all, but who would be glad to see children making their way in the world whether these children love them back or not. The same with lovers' relationships, one party truly loving the other that he or she is willing to let the other party go if that is the way it is.

Modern values-forming rest on men independently doing their own thinking and weighing of issues that are critical to their place in society. It is hoped that by letting them free to weigh critical issues on their own, they would come around over any specific hurdles that they find along the way. Society benefits from such men immensely who could stand on their own, and credits these men themselves on finding the right balance between themselves and society at large. There is no need to look back and thank anybody. They only have themselves to thank for. Understanding is not automatically taught or impelled. It is self-generated, and no amount of god or devil could do that for them. If they surrender that right, then they would fall for the next charismatic doomsayer out to get their souls and dig deep into their pockets to boot. Free will, if we limit its meaning as being able to choose and deliberate over things that could pose powers over us, is everyone's right and not dependent on any supernatural agent. The man who surrenders his has made himself lower than the dumbest of beasts out there.

oh i have read some context from quora about the same topic i asked here it's a quote from some guy it didn't came from my own words, sorry thanks for the insight :)
 
oh i have read some context from quora about the same topic i asked here it's a quote from some guy it didn't came from my own words, sorry thanks for the insight :)

No problemo. I was about to add, in jest, how that loaded awarding of free will sounds just like any eccentric pa or ma or would spout about. The devious mischief about it could be a good source of ice-breaker in many occasions, but to have it thrown around as a serious religious dogma? Just wow. And the funnier thing is that we easily recognize it as such if sounded off by anyone else, but if it comes from the bible, it seems all sense and reason is suspended and we even go about justifying it with apologist gymnastics. :)
 
Guys! What are your thoughts for this qoute?

"Sometimes your sacrifice become compromise to yourself. You will get nothing other than overwhelming".
 
Last edited:
ill just leave this here

Horus - Egypt 3000 BC

Born on Dec 25th
Born of a Virgin
Star of the East
"Lamb of God"
"God's Annointed Son"
Adored by 3 Kings
Teacher at 12
Baptized/Ministry at 30
Has 12 Disciples
Performed Miracles
Cruficied
Buried for 3 Days
Resurrected

Attis - Greece 1200BC

Born on Dec 25th
Born of a Virgin
Star of the East
Performed Miracles
Cruficied
Buried for 3 Days
Resurrected

Krishna - India 900BC

Born on Dec 25th
Born of a Virgin
Star of the East
Has Disciples
Performed Miracles
Resurrected upon his Death

Dionysus - Greece

Born on Dec 25th
Born of a Virgin
Star of the East
"King of Kings"
"Alpha and Omega"
"God's only begotten Son"
Teacher at Early Age
Performed Miracles such as "Turned Water into Wine"
Resurected Upon Death

Mithra Persia 1200 BC

Born on Dec 25th
Born of a Virgin
Has 12 Disciples
Performed Miracles
Dead for 3 Days
Resurrected
"Sunday" Worship

Jesus Christ

Born on Dec 25th
Born of a Virgin
Star in the East
"King of Kings"
"Alpha and Omega"
"God's only begotten Son"
Has 12 Disciples
Performed Miracles
Dead for 3 Days
Resurrected
Raised in Heaven
 
ill just leave this here

Horus - Egypt 3000 BC

Born on Dec 25th
Born of a Virgin
Star of the East
"Lamb of God"
"God's Annointed Son"
Adored by 3 Kings
Teacher at 12
Baptized/Ministry at 30
Has 12 Disciples
Performed Miracles
Cruficied
Buried for 3 Days
Resurrected

Attis - Greece 1200BC

Born on Dec 25th
Born of a Virgin
Star of the East
Performed Miracles
Cruficied
Buried for 3 Days
Resurrected

Krishna - India 900BC

Born on Dec 25th
Born of a Virgin
Star of the East
Has Disciples
Performed Miracles
Resurrected upon his Death

Dionysus - Greece

Born on Dec 25th
Born of a Virgin
Star of the East
"King of Kings"
"Alpha and Omega"
"God's only begotten Son"
Teacher at Early Age
Performed Miracles such as "Turned Water into Wine"
Resurected Upon Death

Mithra Persia 1200 BC

Born on Dec 25th
Born of a Virgin
Has 12 Disciples
Performed Miracles
Dead for 3 Days
Resurrected
"Sunday" Worship

Jesus Christ

Born on Dec 25th
Born of a Virgin
Star in the East
"King of Kings"
"Alpha and Omega"
"God's only begotten Son"
Has 12 Disciples
Performed Miracles
Dead for 3 Days
Resurrected
Raised in Heaven

Well...!! Surprised to see that. You might like to compare to my post here. There's another one also in this thread and a video, but that other post is more complete. You might also like to see the counterarguments presented there by two apologists, until they ran out of them arguments and resorted to the use of typical ad hominems. :)
 
Well...!! Surprised to see that. You might like to compare to my post here. There's another one also in this thread and a video, but that other post is more complete. You might also like to see the counterarguments presented there by two apologists, until they ran out of them arguments and resorted to the use of typical ad hominems. :)

i'm suprised to see your post too! so the story of the sun is the story of Jesus Christ? :)
 
Last edited:
i'm suprised to see your post too! so the story of the sun is the story of Jesus Christ? :)

Sssh... It's supposed to be an old secret that was arrived at by early Enlightenment thinkers and 19th century scholars by the likes of Charles Dupuis and others until another scholar stumbled on the works, Dorothy Milner Murdock, also known as S Acharya. You will find that all kinds of accusations had been hurled at her—by authors playing the part of "scholars" whose only claim to authority in the field is that of being pastors and ministers in their congregations. Fortunately she was able to refute her noisy detractors before she succumbed to cancer. She (or make that her supporters) maintains many sites (one is found here), probably leveraging the internet to spread the knowledge amid the constant presence of the apologists and the threat that the knowledge would be lost again, as what happened to the research materials of the early scholars who saw the connections of Christianity to other religions in the past.
 
Sssh... It's supposed to be an old secret that was arrived at by early Enlightenment thinkers and 19th century scholars by the likes of Charles Dupuis and others until another scholar stumbled on the works, Dorothy Milner Murdock, also known as S Acharya. You will find that all kinds of accusations had been hurled at her—by authors playing the part of "scholars" whose only claim to authority in the field is that of being pastors and ministers in their congregations. Fortunately she was able to refute her noisy detractors before she succumbed to cancer. She (or make that her supporters) maintains many sites (one is found here), probably leveraging the internet to spread the knowledge amid the constant presence of the apologists and the threat that the knowledge would be lost again, as what happened to the research materials of the early scholars who saw the connections of Christianity to other religions in the past.

damn, i got to admit this shed quite a light on me i need more time to research on this as a wise man would do and also as a person going to the church every sunday i'm not satisfied with my belief i supposed i really need to scan some articles and websites like you posted, i also hate the fact that some people walk through the road (our religion) without assessing if this road will lead them to the truth or locked them up forever.

stormer: are you a devoted christian before? i think i'm turning into you lol, also i don't know what to say with my christian girlfriend if i should just keep this to myself.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom