flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Few articles

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
Hello,

tom tobias wrote:
Rugxulo, EVEN IN MY OWN LIFE, half a century ago, when I was just a boy, going to Church every Sunday, as an eleven year old kid, I wondered why the Catholics NEVER referred to the Bible. I asked my father about it, and he told me, as a devout Catholic, that Catholics believe that it is NOT POSSIBLE for ordinary people to understand the Bible. The Church, according to my father, required its "flock" to look to the Priesthood, (i.e. the pedophiles) for instruction about the meaning of the Bible. Now, in that context, five hundred years ago, I can understand Thomas More. He was not ashamed to murder innocent Christians, because he believed that they threatened Catholicism, by making the Bible available to anyone, at any time, to read at their leisure, RATHER THAN REQUIRE those ordinary people TO COME TO CHURCH, and listen to the Pedophiles tell them what to believe, and make sure the ordinary citizens pay their ten percent tax. If ordinary people could read the Bible, without instruction from the Pope, then, why would they need to pay the additional tax? There is absolutely nothing in the Bible to justify either the papacy or the 10% tax to the pedophiles.


Just an observation: I have noticed many easteren philosophies and / or "religions" if you will, have mechanims that work in simmilarly functioning, but less suspicious ways: A person is required to devote his life to understanding a concept in order to be worth of saying they understand what it is. A simmilar mechanism is present in the scientific community, albeit with more testing along the way.

Why would somebody go by that system, to attain the privileged position of being "The One Who Understands"? In all of your short-sightedness, it's nonsense: Why sacrifice anything of yourself in order to get something you might as well get for free? Yet I trust we will both agree that actually understanding the concepts and not merely saying it is something that is a crutial failsafe for the stability of discovered concepts. Simply describing a concept or mechanism into a book does not guarantee proper understanding for all of eternity, due to various types of evolution of reference concepts and ideas trough time.

I will not deny the overwhelming possibility that this failsafe was abused, however it is still a failsafe that I have always thought highly of when analyzing various philosophies and a one that I do not believe can be lightly dismissed without negative consequences.
Post 23 Jul 2007, 22:39
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
The_Grey_Beast wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, we could as well be in a virtual simulation by some other "aliens". And this world is just some virtual simulation (atoms instead of polygons for example Very Happy).

Will science ever be able to "cover this area" as well? I doubt it. In fact, if this virtual simulation is completely "virtual" (that is, atoms, energy, laws of physics, do not apply in the "outside world" of aliens, much like our virtual worlds don't (we use bits, not atoms, to represent our virtual worlds).. Maybe Aliens use atoms to represent this virtual world, and their world is completely different.


When I sit in front of my computer, and I launch up Google Earth... I am not moving, my computer is not moving and most of all, the network isn't going anywhere, yet I can see houses on the other side of the planet. Time has not stopped, yet I can see how the houses were when the shots were taken. How can all of this be?

My point: It is possible to break various constraints of a current environment by well.. shall we call them advanced methods. Scientists purposefully train their minds to be able to do this. Nontrivial, but attainable.
Post 23 Jul 2007, 22:54
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
DustWolf wrote:
The_Grey_Beast wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, we could as well be in a virtual simulation by some other "aliens". And this world is just some virtual simulation (atoms instead of polygons for example Very Happy).

Will science ever be able to "cover this area" as well? I doubt it. In fact, if this virtual simulation is completely "virtual" (that is, atoms, energy, laws of physics, do not apply in the "outside world" of aliens, much like our virtual worlds don't (we use bits, not atoms, to represent our virtual worlds).. Maybe Aliens use atoms to represent this virtual world, and their world is completely different.


When I sit in front of my computer, and I launch up Google Earth... I am not moving, my computer is not moving and most of all, the network isn't going anywhere, yet I can see houses on the other side of the planet. Time has not stopped, yet I can see how the houses were when the shots were taken. How can all of this be?

My point: It is possible to break various constraints of a current environment by well.. shall we call them advanced methods. Scientists purposefully train their minds to be able to do this. Nontrivial, but attainable.


Late into the post, didn't read much. I agree, though. Human perception is just that. Perception dosn't always equal reality. Infact, seldom does perfectly. We have startrek on tv where computers talk to us and listen to our vocal commands, next thing we know someone works on it. We have tapes on star trek, so now we get the bright idea for removable storage, so out comes the floppy disk. We want hand held communication devices that use radio waves that can't get through certain objects, just like the ones in star trek, so we invent the cellphone. We always enter something with a concept, and so that concept becomes part of our perception, in result, the original thought mixing with the results end up reacting in a way that produces in accuret results (since naturally, the odds are that your original assumption isn't right on the nose, otherwise you woudln't have done the experiment. Sometimes people know the real answer in the back of their heads, but they're afraid of reality, so they forget all contradicting evidence in their results and remember only the supporting ideas. Not all scientists are this way, but some are. And it's not just restricted to scientists either. People kid themselves all the time, i see it alot in personal relationships. you just want to believe that she won't leave you for the hotter man, that she really wants you for who you are, not the size of your wallet or your looks or such.
Post 23 Jul 2007, 23:26
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
Here you are terribly wrong. It is possible to detect light by other acceptable ways than just by our retina/brain sensory.
Ok, then if we didn't have any senses, we surely wouldn't be able to "live" and prove anything at all Wink

vid wrote:
If human eyes were able to see infrared light, you would use same argument regarding it. We can't see infrared light, yet we have discovered and proved it. Almost everyone (including you i bet) both "believe" and have proofs of infrared light. I hope this analogy is enough to dismiss your "eyes" argument.

(by the way, science already made it possible to make completely blind people see at least little, even though it is of no importance to this debate)
I wasn't talking about "discovering" infrared light, but rather "seeing" it as you see green color.

For example, devices which 'see' infrared light convert it to some monitor which outputs visible light which we can see (i.e some form of "translation" of colors). Or you can use a spectrometer which outputs visible light as well (waves are made of pixels or graph on papers, which are in turn visible light Wink ).

What I wanted to say was, if no one ever had ears, we wouldn't be able to "hear" at all. In fact, we wouldn't even know what "hearing" means. We would just call sound a "mechanical" event.

But now imagine, it is possible for parallel universes to exist. However, we might not be able to reach them. But imagine, what if we had a new sense, the "parallel universe" sense which enabled us to 'see' parallel universes (much like ears allow you to 'see' sound).

If you were in a move like The Matrix you wouldn't know you were in a virtual simulation at all.

Suppose we were designing some conscious AIs. However, they would only use and adapt to the 'world' we designed for them. They would simply move in our 3D virtual world (with polygons I presume), and distort, etc.. however we designed the world.

But now imagine what really happens. For them, it is perfectly natural to move, distort, touch polygons, etc.. because this is their view on life. However, we as their designers, know that there is absolutely nothing else than just some bits in our video card wandering around and changing values, right?

The AI is limited to their perception, their limited senses (of detecting polygons), they would never be able to 'understand' bits, because bits are exactly what they are made of. Actually, even if they see 'polygons', physics, actually internally it only happens to be bits & a video card.

Notice however that these "bits" and "video card" and "CPU" are completely alien to them? Why so? Because it's made of different phyisics, atoms, electrons, etc.. in their world, it's only polygons.


Cell phones enable us to listen far away by means of observable light waves for example. However, if we lack senses like vision, LCDs would be completely useless. Therefore, we would have to invent some other type of cellphone for text.

Now what if we lacked audio perception as well (ear)? We would have to invent some new type of cellphone which was based on smells.

But what if we lacked noses as well?...

And even so, each step we 'lack' makes our invention much less "observant".

Infrared light has been 'proven' because we can see visible light and made analogies to it. But if we lack a completely different sense, we can't even perceive it in any way possible, and can't prove it.

For example, we live in a 3D world. A 4D world is completely impossible to visualize, yet we can prove it, because we draw analogies from our 3D world. Right?

We live in a world with time as well. We can describe it because we see it.

But what if our world is actually not only a "dimensional" world with x dimensions, but rather a more "complex" world made of many characteristics instead of only dimensions (space, time).. Those characteristics are completely and will be invisible to us, because we can't perceive them, in any way, and we can't draw analogies to them much as we do to other things like Infrared light (since we perceive 'visible' light).

All science theories are based on analogies from other things. A theory is not something that was "proven directly", but rather as an analogy (which supposedly works).

For example, you can't see beyond a black hole ever. So you have never experienced it -- then it isn't solid proof. However scientists draw analogies from formulas, common life situations (gravity, etc..) and apply them to "predict" what happens in a black hole.

One thing is missing. What if inside the Black Hole it's something completely different than our analogies drawn from other experiences?



vid wrote:
Idea of creator of everything cannot be disproven, but it was showed that it is very uncertain
That depends.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, then it must always have existed in our Universe.

But what is time=0, the very beginning of time? Or did time always existed as well (in which case there is still time=0).

But for me, the most strange thing is that the laws of physics are well defined, and follow mathematical rules. This is really strange, and quite unlikely if we were to speculate about the origin of the Universe (before the Big Bang, because all the matter & energy that 'exploded' had to come from somewhere).

vid wrote:
I am glad you understand this. But I don't understand part "accept it as a proof". What proof? Telling someone that i understand something is not a proof, and shouldn't be accepted.
Sorry I didn't mean that.

I meant, if you understand something and try to prove to monkeys that thing, using basic human logic, they won't accept it as proof (even if they understand the English language), because they don't have the capability to understand the same as you.

You can't prove them if they don't understand, right? Wink

vid wrote:
Also prove is something that should be repeatable by (almost) anyone, otherwise i can claim anything and tell that only i can prove it. I hope you understand now why science can't accept such "proofs".
Actually I know Wink

Same as above with monkeys. What if, for you, it's completely logical, because you have IQ of 5505 (example Very Happy), and they're all retarded with only 60 IQ. For you it's completely logical and understandable, but for them it's just stories.

Now answer this question: What can you do in such situation to make people understand your "logic" or proofs?



Also, science is usually based on things that respect a given law -- i.e repeatable. However, isn't it also unlikely (same as Creationist theory) that the world is perfectly following certain mathematical formulas/laws? (or logic)

What if things are actually, on the grand scale (we're inferior, if we think of planets as atoms for example Wink ), things are completely 'chaotic' and never repeatable?

vid wrote:
Meanwhile, i got something for you to read too. You demonstrated that you have "popular" view on what science is, and don't really understand it. I hope you could be interested in learning something about science. I was looking a lot for some good description of science (i am pretty sure i have read few), but best i could remember was this one, already posted on this board: http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=7044. It isn't so strictly focused on science, but explains things well enough i hope.
It seems interesting, I've read a bit of it.

It seems to explain "logic" from his human point of view. But logic is different and subjective (based especially on different "species" so to speak). Aliens might have different logic than us, for example. Wink
Post 24 Jul 2007, 12:14
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
tom tobias wrote:

Rugxulo, EVEN IN MY OWN LIFE, half a century ago, when I was just a boy, going to Church every Sunday, as an eleven year old kid, I wondered why the Catholics NEVER referred to the Bible.


Every mass has several readings from the Bible, including from at least one gospel. The mass hasn't been widely said in Latin for a long time. People have no problems listening (if they want to).

Quote:
I asked my father about it, and he told me, as a devout Catholic, that Catholics believe that it is NOT POSSIBLE for ordinary people to understand the Bible.


More likely, it is very hard not to misunderstand what is being said. People tend to focus on one or two verses when the book (collection of books, actually) is thousands of pages long! It was not written overnight and shouldn't be dismissed as if it was. It does take effort to even weakly understand. But there is coherency there (at least, in Catholicism).

Quote:
The Church, according to my father, required its "flock" to look to the Priesthood, (i.e. the pedophiles) for instruction about the meaning of the Bible. Now, in that context, five hundred years ago, I can understand Thomas More. He was not ashamed to murder innocent Christians, because he believed that they threatened Catholicism, by making the Bible available to anyone, at any time, to read at their leisure, RATHER THAN REQUIRE those ordinary people TO COME TO CHURCH, and listen to the Pedophiles tell them what to believe, and make sure the ordinary citizens pay their ten percent tax.


You cannot celebrate the sacraments by yourself at home: it's impossible. Plus, God wants us to have good relationships with Him and others, something that isn't feasible sitting alone in the dark. Trusting an educated priest over your own ignorance is pretty wise.

Quote:

If ordinary people could read the Bible, without instruction from the Pope, then, why would they need to pay the additional tax? There is absolutely nothing in the Bible to justify either the papacy or the 10% tax to the pedophiles.


How are the priests supposed to live? Who gives them food and water and utilities, then? And who is stopping you from going to mass and yet still not tithing? (BTW, we're required to go every Sunday and Holy Day unless physically unable.)

Okay, I know it's in there (I've read it), but since I don't know the exact verse, here's the result of a quick Google search on "first fruits":

http://www.bible-topics.com/Firstfruits-The.html

vid wrote:

Thank god we aren't been living 2500 years ago, when god was so much less patient and forgiving... wonder what changed his opinion


God wants no one to die or be separated from Him even for an instant (or especially forever). Therefore, He was willing to take our guilt via punishment on the cross. This is considered the perfect offering of atonement for all our sins (since He is innocent yet we are guilty). He did this out of love:

John 3:16 wrote:

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.


Romans 5:7-8 wrote:

Indeed, only with difficulty does one die for a just person, though perhaps for a good person one might even find courage to die.
But God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.
Post 25 Jul 2007, 05:54
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
shoorick



Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 1605
Location: Ukraine
shoorick
ones i've been impressed by christians too much, then i decided to read bible from start till end to improove myself in god, and then as far i've been reading i disliked it more and more, and now i'm keeping away from this (thanks to bible). once a witness of jegova asked me: how do you think why we differ from other confession? i told - you have bookmarks in bible in different places. bible-based discussions are infinite and useless as there are a lot of contradictions and poly interpretations.
Post 25 Jul 2007, 06:47
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
shoorick wrote:
ones i've been impressed by christians too much, then i decided to read bible from start till end to improove myself in god, and then as far i've been reading i disliked it more and more, and now i'm keeping away from this (thanks to bible). once a witness of jegova asked me: how do you think why we differ from other confession? i told - you have bookmarks in bible in different places. bible-based discussions are infinite and useless as there are a lot of contradictions and poly interpretations.


Not to forget translations. Old testiment was in hebrew, and i've been told the new was in greek.
Post 25 Jul 2007, 06:58
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
kohlrak wrote:
Late into the post, didn't read much. I agree, though. Human perception is just that. Perception dosn't always equal reality.


I've had this long debate a while ago with a person who based his religious understanding on the point that he refused to believe a simulation running inside a limited system could simulate elements that it's underlying system did not implement... in other words that once you limit a system's vocabulary, all underlying systems will all inherit these limitations. Thus if we as people are limited.. and we are, then everything we ever immagine / come up with will be equally limited. This concept is much like the belifs of our The_Grey_Beast here.

Now, for a second, even if we ignore all the points about how religious leaders, people who wrote the bible and all other religious masterpieces are just as human as we are... since that could be disputed by our FSM believers here, as that the creatinon of those artipieces could be an act of divine intervention... I have hoped that people who actually understood computers, as in the-bunches-of-very-limited-flipflops-evidently-running-very-complex-simulations... would be more able to comprehend the point that any simulation running inside a limited system does have a way of comprehending the greater scheme, beyond the capacity of the underlying system. Our minds are one such simulation.

And this argument is equaly usable with HLL compilers. Is a HLL based on a limited HLL capable of doing thing that the LLL is capable of?

After the prolonged discussion I was not sure I could provide obvious proof of the point that those limitations do not exist... I had hoped for an argument there.
Post 25 Jul 2007, 09:47
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
kohlrak wrote:
Old testiment was in hebrew, and i've been told the new was in greek.

...All this shows that Aramaic had become the lingua franca of the Jewish nation after their captivity in Babylon. .... It is a fact that every book in the New Testament was written by a first century Jew, whose first language was Aramaic.

Within Semitic, the Northwest Semitic languages formed around the 3rd millennium BCE, grouped with the Arabic languages as Central Semitic. The Canaanite languages are a group within Northwest Semitic, emerging in the 2nd millennium BCE in the Levant, gradually separating from Aramaic and Ugaritic....
Post 25 Jul 2007, 09:58
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
shoorick wrote:
bible-based discussions are infinite and useless as there are a lot of contradictions and poly interpretations.
Well written, and right to the point, bringing us back to vid's original post on this thread, illustrating the true ten commandments, for example.
Smile
Post 25 Jul 2007, 10:06
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
I've had this long debate a while ago with a person who based his religious understanding on the point that he refused to believe a simulation running inside a limited system could simulate elements that it's underlying system did not implement... in other words that once you limit a system's vocabulary, all underlying systems will all inherit these limitations. Thus if we as people are limited.. and we are, then everything we ever immagine / come up with will be equally limited. This concept is much like the belifs of our The_Grey_Beast here.

Now, for a second, even if we ignore all the points about how religious leaders, people who wrote the bible and all other religious masterpieces are just as human as we are... since that could be disputed by our FSM believers here, as that the creatinon of those artipieces could be an act of divine intervention... I have hoped that people who actually understood computers, as in the-bunches-of-very-limited-flipflops-evidently-running-very-complex-simulations... would be more able to comprehend the point that any simulation running inside a limited system does have a way of comprehending the greater scheme, beyond the capacity of the underlying system. Our minds are one such simulation.


I've noticed that the FASMers here don't seem to comprehend that well. It has become rather annoying that it seems that few people actually do comprehend the concept. Considering that it is my main argument against science, i find it difficult to debate about the limitations of science here or anywhere else. Perhaps it is the result of another human weakness such as wishful thinking brought forth by humanism?

Quote:
After the prolonged discussion I was not sure I could provide obvious proof of the point that those limitations do not exist... I had hoped for an argument there.


It is difficult to prove or disprove such, for the proof would have to exceed our weaknesses, thus resulting in the lack of argument due to incomprehension.

Quote:
It is a fact that every book in the New Testament was written by a first century Jew, whose first language was Aramaic.


Well, that's the problem with hearsay. With sensative topics, it's all you have for you can't trust anything that's stated as fact to really be fact. Consider me corrected. Though, in all reality, it should be latin/roman because their occupation at the time was by Rome. Thouhg, what should be isn't always.
Post 25 Jul 2007, 15:52
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
kohlrak wrote:
...Though, in all reality, it should be latin/roman because their occupation at the time was by Rome.
Hmmm. Then, should the TaiWanese all have written in Japanese, since TaiWan was occupied by Japan from 1895 to 1945? Should the Iraquis all write in English, today, since Iraq is occupied by the USA? Should the Italians have all written in French, after Napolean? Should the French have switched to German, after 1940? Should the Hungarians have switched to Russian in 1956? Should the Finns have switched to Russian? What about the Estonians? Should Madis be writing in Russian? ad infinatum....
Though their native languages were all Ahramaic, 2000 years ago, many of them wrote in Greek, because that was the "English" of that era, aka "lingua franca". Further, at least some of them, Saul comes to mind, LIVED in Greece.
They may have written in Aramaic, or in Greek, or both. Point is, really, that NONE of them wrote anything until 40 years after the death of Jesus. Think back, 40 years. The year is 1967. How many FASM forumers were even alive then? How many remember the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, condemning Viet Nam for "attacking" the USA navy? How many bothered then, to inquire, "Daddy, why were those ships of ours so close to Viet Nam????" "Daddy, why were those great big ships unable to repel the attack of people defending their homeland against alien invaders, by means of wooden fishing boats? How could those peasants be able to threaten the great big US Navy with all its guns and planes on a steel boat????" "Daddy, are you sure this "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" is not a hoax?

Hmmmm. 40 years is a long time to try and recreate history. But 40 years is the EARLIEST text of the Christian era. Most of the nonsense in the "Bible" was written fifty or 100 years AFTER the first "epistle", or "gospel". To eliminate the numerous contradictory documents, the church, under the authority of the pagan Constantine, at the council of Nicea, decided which fairy tales to include, and which to exclude. They brightened the text a tad, just to ensure that everyone read the same story. 300 years after the event occurred, no one attending the Council of Nicea knew the precise date of Jesus' birth. Accordingly, Emperor Constantine awarded the most important date in the pagan calender to the birth of John the Baptist, and the SECOND most important date in the pagan calender, the winter solstice, to Jesus of Nazareth. On the other hand, it was fortunate in restrospect that Jesus came in second, else, how could Santa Claus travel in June during the Summer Solstice?
Post 25 Jul 2007, 19:32
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
tom tobias wrote:
kohlrak wrote:
...Though, in all reality, it should be latin/roman because their occupation at the time was by Rome.
Hmmm. Then, should the TaiWanese all have written in Japanese, since TaiWan was occupied by Japan from 1895 to 1945? Should the Iraquis all write in English, today, since Iraq is occupied by the USA? Should the Italians have all written in French, after Napolean? Should the French have switched to German, after 1940? Should the Hungarians have switched to Russian in 1956? Should the Finns have switched to Russian? What about the Estonians? Should Madis be writing in Russian? ad infinatum....
Though their native languages were all Ahramaic, 2000 years ago, many of them wrote in Greek, because that was the "English" of that era, aka "lingua franca". Further, at least some of them, Saul comes to mind, LIVED in Greece.


for that, i leave you this.

kohlrak wrote:
Though, in all reality, it should be latin/roman because their occupation at the time was by Rome. Thouhg, what should be isn't always.


Quote:
They may have written in Aramaic, or in Greek, or both. Point is, really, that NONE of them wrote anything until 40 years after the death of Jesus. Think back, 40 years. The year is 1967. How many FASM forumers were even alive then? How many remember the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, condemning Viet Nam for "attacking" the USA navy? How many bothered then, to inquire, "Daddy, why were those ships of ours so close to Viet Nam????" "Daddy, why were those great big ships unable to repel the attack of people defending their homeland against alien invaders, by means of wooden fishing boats? How could those peasants be able to threaten the great big US Navy with all its guns and planes on a steel boat????" "Daddy, are you sure this "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" is not a hoax?

Hmmmm. 40 years is a long time to try and recreate history. But 40 years is the EARLIEST text of the Christian era. Most of the nonsense in the "Bible" was written fifty or 100 years AFTER the first "epistle", or "gospel". To eliminate the numerous contradictory documents, the church, under the authority of the pagan Constantine, at the council of Nicea, decided which fairy tales to include, and which to exclude. They brightened the text a tad, just to ensure that everyone read the same story. 300 years after the event occurred, no one attending the Council of Nicea knew the precise date of Jesus' birth. Accordingly, Emperor Constantine awarded the most important date in the pagan calender to the birth of John the Baptist, and the SECOND most important date in the pagan calender, the winter solstice, to Jesus of Nazareth. On the other hand, it was fortunate in restrospect that Jesus came in second, else, how could Santa Claus travel in June during the Summer Solstice?


Your proof of both your claims of the date of the writing and the exclusion of our "fairy tales?" May i point out that from past arguments that you can find that many religously centered (for or against it) often has a tendancy to be un-scientific and politically centered (since religion has become one of the major factors in politics). I have always found that "science" in all forms (archeology [sp?], astrology, conventional, and other fields) that are politically centered are highly questionable and subject to manipulation. Though, i don't understand what Santa Claus has to do with this, so i request you elaborate. I sure hope that it isn't to childishly mock me and other christians here.
Post 25 Jul 2007, 20:23
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
MichaelH
tom tobias wrote:

They may have written in Aramaic, or in Greek, or both. Point is, really, that NONE of them wrote anything until 40 years after the death of Jesus. Think back, 40 years. The year is 1967. How many FASM forumers were even alive then? How many remember the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, condemning Viet Nam for "attacking" the USA navy? How many bothered then, to inquire, "Daddy, why were those ships of ours so close to Viet Nam????" "Daddy, why were those great big ships unable to repel the attack of people defending their homeland against alien invaders, by means of wooden fishing boats? How could those peasants be able to threaten the great big US Navy with all its guns and planes on a steel boat????" "Daddy, are you sure this "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" is not a hoax?


kohlrak, I have re highlighted the above text for you to read again as it was another brilliantly written piece of text written by tom and you just seemed to completely miss the several points tom was making and discarded it's brilliance.

Put this in the contect of christianity. If you can reason away the adsudity of the above example and come to the conclusion that only 40 years ago, VietNamese wooden fishing boats were a real threat to a US aircraft carrier the size of two football fields, then I guess you have the capacity to absorb the complete nonsense of the proganda of 2000 years ago.

It's not that non chistians mock christianity, it's more that people like myself have not got the ability to adsorb nonsense as truth.
Post 25 Jul 2007, 21:21
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
kohlrak, I have re highlighted the above text for you to read again as it was another brilliantly written piece of text written by tom and you just seemed to completely miss the several points tom was making and discarded it's brilliance.


Why don't you just put into black and white for us?

Quote:
Put this in the contect of christianity. If you can reason away the adsudity of the above example and come to the conclusion that only 40 years ago, VietNamese wooden fishing boats were a real threat to a US aircraft carrier the size of two football fields, then I guess you have the capacity to absorb the complete nonsense of the proganda of 2000 years ago.


I didn't hear of fishing boats in veitnam. I hear little of it, but i can clearly say it was a mistake on the part of the US to get involved. It was a civil war, not an international war. Though you have yet to prove that any of the "propoganda of 2000 years ago" is nonsense.

Quote:
It's not that non chistians mock christianity, it's more that people like myself have not got the ability to adsorb nonsense as truth


You've shown nothing to contrare (sp?) providing that i have yet to see you mention an achievement of the united states, yet you constantly trash it. It is non-sense that the US is an evil and nothing good comes from it, but it seems that every mention of the US from you supports that non-sense. I'm not saying that atheists are idiots that buy into propoganda, but i am saying that you are quite capable of absorbing bullshit. I've had enough with your dis-respect for people who aren't of you or agree with you. Normally, i would handle this in a private message, but i feel that others have noticed how you have little consideration for those who don't agree with you, outside of just myself. You bitch and moan about the US government being intolerant to those who dosn't agree with their life style, you bitch and moan about radical religous leaders being intolerant of other religions, but i find you no better. It's pathetic how you feel (yet never said directly) that only atheism is the correct view of existance and that the US is the axis of all destruction in this world. Grow up. It dosn't matter if there is a God or not. You still need to give a little respect to other views. I don't say that atheists are morons for not believing in an intellegent power above, i say that i beleive that there is an intellegent power and they can believe whatever they want. I don't call them immoral people who have no guidance, i say they have their own guidance which could possibly result in it, in the long run, without a contradictory factor (which could be anything, including or excluding a religion). Instead, you sit and throw insults and mockery at us. I find you a poor representative of atheists, and i do hope that christians do not get their opinions of atheists from people like you.

Sorry for the public display, people, but i think it's about time some one gave him a piece of their mind.
Post 25 Jul 2007, 22:02
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
kohlrak wrote:
Your proof of both your claims of the date of the writing and the exclusion of our "fairy tales?"

if you really are interested in some study of biblical dating, and you aren't asking to undermine his arguments, then one of articles contains exactly what you was asking for: http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm
Post 25 Jul 2007, 22:19
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
vid wrote:
kohlrak wrote:
Your proof of both your claims of the date of the writing and the exclusion of our "fairy tales?"

if you really are interested in some study of biblical dating, and you aren't asking to undermine his arguments, then one of articles contains exactly what you was asking for: http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm


I'm even more interested in where the quotes are comming from... But alas, i'll give it a read when i have a little more time. I'm currently distracted by IMs, TV, and relatives.. not to forget a lady. =) I did skim over a little, though.
Post 25 Jul 2007, 23:13
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
MichaelH
Quote:

Sorry for the public display, people, but i think it's about time some one gave him a piece of their mind.


Perhaps you're right kohlrak but I suggest it is someone other than you who gives me their piece of mind cause it's very clear that you've already given far too much of your mind to other people Wink

Oh and BTW .... I'm not an atheist
Post 26 Jul 2007, 00:59
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
kohlrak wrote:
...It was a civil war, not an international war.

A civil war, you write????
Now, this statement proves my point. Here we are, only forty years later, and a high school student knows nothing of USA invasion of VietNam, even though, young compatriots, his age, are dying every day in Iraq, for the same kind of nonsensical reasons as were given for fighting in Vietnam, forty years ago.
After the defeat of the Japanese, in 1945, HoChiMinh assumed, incorrectly as it turned out, that the Europeans and USA would honor their unwritten assurances to the VietMinh, that, in support for the latter's help in fighting the Japanese, VietNam would become a free state, with a secular government. DeGaulle had other ideas, and the French reassumed their former colonial role, from which they had been expelled, by the Japanese. In 1954 the French were defeated by the Viet Minh, and HoChiMinh became the head of VietNam in the northern half, an artificial boundary, as with Korea, drawn to appease the nations who had fought the Japanese and Germans together. The United Nations agreed to hold free elections, throughout the whole of VietNam, and if the USA had not cancelled the elections, in 1956, the whole country would have voted for Ho Chi Minh, by an overwhelming majority. There was no civil war. As with Korea, it was the USA that invaded, and conquered, supporting the Catholics in the South, who, may well have been persecuted by the Northerners, for long standing disputes, over many decades....Christianity did not play an entirely constructive role, in either VietNam, or China. The so-called civil war was a hoax, much like the weapons of mass destruction---oh, yeah, Saddam had them alright, but from where did he procure the chemical weapons used to kill thousands of Iranians, and then, later, thousands of Iraquis? CIA. CIA. CIA.
History is easily abused, easily forgotten, easily ignored. Education is difficult, but the first step is to open your brain to something new. If you accept the nonsense you have been taught until now, without bothering to engage in some research (hint, Gulf of Tonkin resolution--> google), then, you will remain ignorant. The early years of Christianity--> guess what, it is VERY difficult to know for sure what went on back then. We just hardly can explain what took place forty years ago, despite having computers, television, radio, internet, satellites, etc. They were working with the papyrus not eaten by the goats. Bottom line: people have been cheating, lying, and stealing for a very long time. There is little advantage to supposing that no one changed any aspect of the story of Jesus, somewhere along the line, during the past two millenia, in order to make a buck.
Post 26 Jul 2007, 03:18
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
There is little advantage to supposing that no one changed any aspect of the story of Jesus, somewhere along the line, during the past two millenia, in order to make a buck.


Actually, i have examples of such, but by mentioning them, i could offend some people. Though, i will point out that it is why there have formed more than only 2 christian churches. The question, though, remains of why some one would change something for money. What *would* some one want changed? The general rule with christianity and some other religions is that if you hurt yourself in any way, hurt others in any way, or offend the lord in any way, you're sinning. Anything else is fair game. Considering that i don't recall being there an exception to that, i don't find where anyone would have been paid to change. One has to have motive to change something. General christianity leaves little to be liked. Usually, from what i've seen, changes to thing such as that would require a motive. So, with the exception of names and "just believe and me and you'll be saved," i can't see what would be wanted to be changed. Humans have a tendancy to want to remove things rather than add them, but that's just from my observation, hence my loyalty to the religion, despite the possibility.

Quote:
but from where did he procure the chemical weapons used to kill thousands of Iranians, and then, later, thousands of Iraquis? CIA. CIA. CIA.


An old joke is, "Military intelligence? What intellegence?"

Quote:
Now, this statement proves my point. Here we are, only forty years later, and a high school student knows nothing of USA invasion of VietNam, even though, young compatriots, his age, are dying every day in Iraq, for the same kind of nonsensical reasons as were given for fighting in Vietnam, forty years ago.
After the defeat of the Japanese, in 1945, HoChiMinh assumed, incorrectly as it turned out, that the Europeans and USA would honor their unwritten assurances to the VietMinh, that, in support for the latter's help in fighting the Japanese, VietNam would become a free state, with a secular government. DeGaulle had other ideas, and the French reassumed their former colonial role, from which they had been expelled, by the Japanese. In 1954 the French were defeated by the Viet Minh, and HoChiMinh became the head of VietNam in the northern half, an artificial boundary, as with Korea, drawn to appease the nations who had fought the Japanese and Germans together. The United Nations agreed to hold free elections, throughout the whole of VietNam, and if the USA had not cancelled the elections, in 1956, the whole country would have voted for Ho Chi Minh, by an overwhelming majority. There was no civil war. As with Korea, it was the USA that invaded, and conquered, supporting the Catholics in the South, who, may well have been persecuted by the Northerners, for long standing disputes, over many decades....Christianity did not play an entirely constructive role, in either VietNam, or China.


As i'm sure i've said before, certain things, especially american failures, aren't covered. As for christianity being in-constructive... Religion, as many other things, has always been subject to abuse. People fear a firey pit, separation, a worse next life, and other things. Because of that, they can be manipulated.

Quote:
History is easily abused, easily forgotten, easily ignored. Education is difficult, but the first step is to open your brain to something new.


Perhaps i have opened the mind to something new, but perhaps it's restricted to what is handed to me.

Quote:
If you accept the nonsense you have been taught until now, without bothering to engage in some research (hint, Gulf of Tonkin resolution--> google), then, you will remain ignorant.


Well you're more than welcome to educate me, as long as the resources are decent. Though, considering i can't do anything to change what will be, i don't see how history lessons would do me any good. That's why i really don't take fasm forum arguments too seriously. For that reson, i still wonder why we have these debates so often.
Post 26 Jul 2007, 04:17
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.