GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
Wow..people this gets boring. So many evidence around you in information age yet you still choose to be ignorant..oh well..your choice..for people who need visible proof ancient civilisations were not dumb and that ancient constructions were not done by slaves or for lame purposes here is something that prooves they were smart + that man in his writings also mentioned existence of Gods.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_Castle http://maps.google.com
Also watch this video.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO5TRhVlUQ8
Conclusion after everything in this topic + if you searched for God in your own life ignoring brainwash craptalk - force we call God exists and religions didn't come from empty air!!! Take this you ignorant atheists..
P.S.I'm done trying to open eyes for you here - rest is your choice..
You've posted coral castle as your proof? Laughable.
I actually agree 100% with some of your post ('ancient civilisations were not dumb'). I semi-agree with other bits even though its a masive overgeneralisation ('ancient constructions were not done by slaves')....but thats probably because I think you dont mean things like the Sumerian/Babylonian/Akkadian/Assyrian zuggiruats, at least some of which would have been constructed with slave labour. That is hardly the only ancient constructions that could possibly or even probably be built wth slave labour.
Originally Posted by SigTerm
Regarding coral castle.
There's this video you might want to check out.
The dude explains how to build stonehenge using gravity. Also, he rotates buildings. Alone.
I actually hadnt seen that, thanks. Not any great suprise, I had guessed (believed? LOL) that it was possible, but I'd never seen it demonstrated.
Originally Posted by SigTerm
It is all quite simple, once you throw away the whole "aliens/gods must've done it" thing.
The problem with "there's no way humans could've done it" (pyramids) or "there's no way it isn't designed by god"(life) is that such situation do not prove magic, existence of god, or miracles. You simply surrender/give up on trying to find truth out, shut down your brain, throw your sense of reason away, and annouce "it is a miracle!". While in reality you simply haven't tried hard enough to research and find out how it could've been done by humans, or how it could happen without god.
Its not quite as simple as you are making out, IMO. I'd agree, you dont need divinity, or aliens, to explain ANY ancient site...though it does make things a lot simplier if you allow that ancient people might have been a lot smarter and knowledgeable than archaeology allows.
The problem is that some sites, the giza pyramids in particular, simply cannot by done in the way that the archaeologist say they were built (LOL, the only viable method for building the giza pyramids that I know of still has a few minor issues). When archaeology is seen as at least semi-scientific, when you run across some huge and fairly obvious problems with the current archaeological paradigm, its very easy to start thinking that all science is just as junk.....which is simply untrue.
Originally Posted by SigTerm
Anyway, maybe you aren't aware of that, but the reason why some people do not believe in god, is because they DID search for god, but did not find it. Christians turn into atheists and agnostics, you know, and they normally have a good reason for that.
That also goes the other way. Probably less often than from religious into atheists/agnostics, but it does happen.
Originally Posted by bluegospel
So basically, the agnostic position is that if there is a God, the agnostic knows better than him. That's a statement, not a question.
If it wasnt for all the stuff I've seen you post here before, I'd think you were trolling with that comment.
I'll assume that you arent, and cant even be bothered to use that great resource, 'the internet' to do a bit of research.
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable
Riddle me this....if the bible is the 'word of god', why was it edited?
God created the human mind and heart. He gave humans the intelligence to study and engages them not only in writing the Scripture, but interpreting all sorts of difficult things, including Scripture. Show me a discrepancy of the various Protestant interpretations of Scripture that contradicts the Scripture's fundamental thought, or an unreasonable explanation from the interpreters for their departure from an otherwise acceptable translation, and I will give you that the agnostic position is at least sincere.
Originally Posted by cascade9
Please explain why you needed a bunch of all too human people to establish doctrine?
God didn't need them. But what better method--for a holy God--to convey by "script" his nature and desires to sinful people, than through the best human examples of godliness--Moses, David, John, and yes, Paul, and others, together with their faults--overcome. What attested attributes of the Christian God preclude his prerogative to include such examples as co-authors with him of the true Scripture?
Despite the title of this thread, I have noticed a distinct lack of ranking of religiousness around these here parts. So, where 0 is "not at all", alpha is "somewhere around the middle" and 57 is "very", could you all rank your religiousness please.