100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > ApertureScience
|
|
|
Billions of people have no idea just how close we came to extinction.
That's kinda sad. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Christ without Christianity
|
|
I agree with you there to a point. If all a person does is look at science and religious teachers as people who all have an agenda to teach their specific topics, then sure, choosing which ones to believe would be on precisely equal footing. However, if you go beyond that a look at the methods that scientists use to acquire their knowledge versus the methods that religious people use to acquire their knowledge, suddenly the scientists should be trusted to have information that has been far more carefully scrutinized. And finally, it shouldn't take much to realize that religious people are infamous for going off the deep end of trying to support their religious beliefs whilst purposefully ignoring evidence to the contrary. So not only do they not use the rigorous methods of science to acquire their knowledge, but they even refuse to acknowledge when their knowledge has been shown to be non-credible. So just based on that alone a person should be more apt to believe the teachings of science than the teachings of any religion. Agreed! ^ that's pretty much what I was saying 
The key thing here is the scientific method (peace be upon it  ). It is the only thing that separates Rational Man from Primitive Man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Christ without Christianity
|
|
I think the story of Joshua and Moses is of course, also pure fiction along with the evil King David and Abraham. If you take all of these "not so nice" characters out of the Bible and leave Christ in, you might have a great religion.  Very true!
and a nice way to bring the discussion back to the original point! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Christ without Christianity
|
|
Also, although I claim to be basically a pantheist, I don't know anyone or any church (or forum) that believes what I believe. My beliefs are constantly changing as I keep an open mind so that I can evaluate new information. Hear hear! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Christ without Christianity
|
|
You're funny Abra. You may be here to change the views of others, which you appear to be. You continually down and or degrade religious beliefs to purely fictional stories taken on faith from hearsay rumors. And in turn you feel others have similar motives. I'm here DISCUSSING religious views, not trying to convert anyone or show Christianity in particular as being absolute fact. We don't all have your motives for discussing the this forum. I personally, am just here for the conversation on different spiritual views. To share mine and hear others. Nothing more, nothing less, it's called SHARING. Not debating, or arguing. It is you that always turns it to a debate or argument. You continually try to point out things you see as absurd in the religious view of whatever may be the topic at hand. Not here to change anyone's views Abra, only to discuss and share my own personal beliefs, as that's what this forum is for. So please keep the "making the other look bad" to yourself and stay on topic of the discussion. Very cool
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Christ without Christianity
|
|
Abracadbra Go on and on doing what? Proving your absolute complete ignorance of the scientific method of discovery of truths? CowboyGH Did you discover these things yourself? Cause if you did not, if you got your information from another party, you're listening to hearsay rumors are you continuously point out of the Christian faith. You say we believe these things on pure faith, they are hearsay rumors. So is most of science, you believe these things without repeating the experiments yourself, you take it on faith that what they say is true. I think what Cowboy is saying (dude, if I'm misrepresenting you, please correct me!) is that we [rational beings] accept the 'facts' of the scientific community without question, which is not unlike [regular] people accepting the 'truth' of our 'spiritual leaders' and ancient texts. However there is a massive difference: we can become educated, enter into science and test these theories for ourselves. If an individual disagrees with a commonly accepted 'truth' then he is able to test it with the scientific method; occasionally a 'truth' may be discredited or modifed by this method and is rewritten. Thus progress is made. This method is not applicable to faith; by definition faith is belief without evidence. Faith sits in its smug corner with its fingers in its ears. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Christ without Christianity
|
|
Jesus was no more, or less "divine" than anyone else. What he might have been was a very wise mystic who tried to teach his community better morals than they had been taught by the Torah. Unfortunately he seems to have failed miserably in that attempt, and even at the cost of his very own life in a very brutal way. It's a sad story even historically speaking. I agree [in bold], though I wouldn't say he failed (even at the cost of his own life), the people who have used his name for ill are the failiures. If the Jesus myths have inspired any one to do good then that is where "he" has succeeded. That historical account of the navy being destroyed in a storm at see appears to be quite true. Whether any God named Poseidon had anything to do with it is an entirely different matter. But these are precisely the very same kinds of things that the Hebrews did. They took perfectly normal natural events from their history and inserted superstitious beliefs into them about their God intervening. Precisely. Ancient astrology, paganism, polytheism through to monotheism is comparable to, in my opinion, a child drawing the Sun with a smiley face (I hope the analogy is clear!) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Christ without Christianity
|
|
Yeah really. Yes. Really. You can talk about Jesus without Christianity. But it's pointless to speak about Christ without Christianity. Christianity is not about Jesus. Christianity is about using Jesus to support a much larger dogma and superstitious view, IMHO. I have no problem with Jesus. But I have huge problems with Christianity. Kind of like Mahatma Gandhi, "I like your Christ, but I don't care much for your Christians". Even that was a slip of the tongue on Gandhi's behalf. He should have said, ""I like your Jesus, but I don't care much for your Christians". Because to even refer to Jesus as "Christ" implies that this is what he was. Again, I'd bet he chose his words because it makes for a catchier phrase. Alliteration is effective. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The True Meaning of "LOL"
|
|
I was like you...I was always thinking about why it is sometimes tacked onto a sentence before realising that it’s used like a ‘cure all’ for a multitude of different ‘jocular’ emotions/feelings – don’t know if that makes sense.... I know that I tend to use it as a panacea to soften the implication of something that I’ve typed... That makes total sense
Just as emoticons can bring a whole new meaning to a piece of text. They are the body language and tone of voice of what would otherwise be cold, emotionless digital communication. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The True Meaning of "LOL"
Edited by
ApertureScience
on
Fri 11/04/11 06:57 PM
|
|
I'm often a giddy sort of person, and when I type "LOL", it's because I just DID actually laugh out loud. I can only speak for myself, but I'm honest when I type it. same here. I can spot an insincere LOL at fifty paces. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Christ without Christianity
|
|
I have quite a bit to say on this issue because this is an issue that is very near and dear to my heart. Let me begin by responding to the thread title. Christ without Christianity From my perspective it's meaningless to speak of a "Christ" without Christianity... Great response, thank you. I was totally expecting someone to pick up on that error, believe me I thought the same thing before posting. It just seemed like a catchier title
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Judge beats daughter
|
|
not really, the video is over seven minutes long he doesnt even enter the room until almost one minute the first lash starts at 1:02 four lashes from 1:07-1:10 three lashes at 1:23-1:25 two lashes at 1:29-1:31 four lashes from 1:47-1:53 then nearly half a minute passes before mom gives her a lash at 2:22 dad comes back nearly FIFTY seconds later at 3:15 and gives her another lash another lash at 3:23 another at 3:28 parents stand around another FIFTY seconds until 4:15 when he begins to verbally chastise the daughter he leaves the room at 5:56 so, in a total video of 7:35 , from 1:02 to 3:28 (two minutes and 26 seconds was the duration of the spanking. with a minute and twenty seconds of idle time included in that) just saying they didnt truly spank her for most of the video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3iKLz4oatY&feature=fvwrel This video is only 42 seconds long. The plane hits the tower at 0:19 The firey explosion goes on until 0:29 Just saying they only attacked the WTC for 10 seconds. Now, I am truly sorry to use such an extreme example, it is pretty much Godwin's Law in effect lol, but this topic and your rationalisation of abuse has riled me up to this extent. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Judge beats daughter
|
|
if its any consellation, the 'spanking' was about a minute and a half, the other six minutes was arranging the scene and alot of verbal chastising,,, Ok, I'll have to take your word on that. its much less extreme when you mute it, the verbal was actually more shocking than the lashes,,, Starvation is much less extreme when we ignore it and stuff our faces with McDonalds. Muted or not I saw a grown man beat a child with the intent to cause pain. A deaf person could see the strength in his lashes. I don't get your angle. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Judge beats daughter
|
|
Sorry, I got about 1:30 into the video before having to stop it - I felt like punching my own monitor - so I can't comment on the other six minutes.
I was spanked as a child but it was always about humiliation, not causing bodily harm. This sick, belt-toting [expletives escape me] is abusing a child, no two ways about it. And he is a judge? He is in authority to dish out punishment?! How can anyone not see there is something very wrong here?!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Should've started here lol
|
 seems I jumped right in without introducing myself.
Hello Minglefolk! 
My name's John, I am a Briton with Pakistani heritage. I studied science at college without any clear direction; after many years out of education I am now aiming to become an astrophysicist - I am very concerned about the giant chunks of rock flying around our solar system this may seem nerdy to some but this is an issue that affects everyone living on this tiny planet.
I am passionate about technology and its effects on society; religion and its past and future in our world; and film. I heard about this site through a friend, who told me this is more of a social network than a 'true' dating site, which suits me just fine. I hope to meet many interesting people from around the world, engage in exciting discussion and, most importantly, make new friends! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Good morning from England!
|
|
All right? - This is used a lot around London and the south to mean, "Hello, how are you? This is used up north too, though it comes out as 'arright' (Manc) or 'ite' (Scouse). Other areas may have their own variations. Best of British - If someone says "The best of British to you" when you are visiting the UK, it simply means good luck. It is short for "best of British luck". Never in all my travels have I heard this one perhaps I haven't travelled enough!
Biggie - This is unusual. A biggie is what a child calls his poo! Hence the reason Wendy's Hamburgers has never really taken off in England - who would buy "biggie fries"? Yuck - I'm sure you wouldn't buy poo fries! Same again. Must be regional to a region I've never encountered
Bladdered - This rather ugly expression is another way of saying you are drunk. Technically 'Blathered'. Probably evolved through misuse. Blimey - Another exclamation of surprise. It is all a corruption of the oath God Blind Me. Stone me if I didn't know that! You learn something everyday 
Bonk - Same meaning as shag. Means to have sex. E.g. "Did you bonk him/her?". Invented by The Sun (a rag "news"paper, not the celestial object) in the 80's. Dekko - To have a look at something. Another new one to me! Dog's bollocks - You would say that something really fantastic was the dog's bollocks. Comes from the fact that a dog's bollocks are so fantastic that he can't stop licking them! Nice huh? Often shortened to just "The dog's". or 'The Mutt's Nuts'
Full monty - Going the full way. The film of the same name has caused much confusion; apparently some are now under the impression it means stripping naked
Cor lummy! I'd best continue my commentary on the morrow or I'll be knackered by cock's crow! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
TO HELL WITH THE DEVIL!!
|
|
pleased to meet you,
hope you guessed my name 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
WHAT ARE YOU READING NOW
|
|
Uriel's Machine:The Ancient Origins of Science by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas (for non-fiction)
Re-reading I, Claudius by Robert Graves (for entertainment) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MorningSong, I have two friends who are VERY concerned about end time prophecy. They are worried about the proposed RFID chip being the mark of the beast.
After some research I was suprised to find that the 'futurist' interpretation of Revelations only came to the forefront as recently as the 19th century (for a long long time it had been read as an allegory for the fall of the Roman Empire) and that if you look around there are a ridiculous amount of opinions of what the mark is; some say it is the Jewish five pointed star, others say it was the coinage of the Romans, cell phones, barcodes, some people believe the mark is the Bible itself lol Anyway, I was glad that my friends brought this issue up because it lead me to researching about the RFID chip (look it up if you haven't heard of it, it is chilling stuff!). Now, I don't have to believe in biblical prophecy to see that this is a terrible thing! Whether it's true or just internet hysteria, I don't care. I will not allow any government to implant me with a microchip!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Red Dwarf
|
|
Great writeup RainbowTrout
I would advise new viewers to start with series 3 to 5, they were the golden years! Start with Season 1 and 2 so you know how everything began. True, but if I was aiming to impress someone new to the series I'd explain the premise and start with the best episodes. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
