You can view the page at http://metabunk.org/content/138-What...nd-Skepticism?
You can view the page at http://metabunk.org/content/138-What...nd-Skepticism?
Hi Mick!
I appreciate your work over at the chemtrail debunking site. Thank you!
A quick comment on this article: Many people saw Jesus after He rose from the dead, testifying openly of Him and essentially laying their lives on the line by doing so. Some were martyred. And you are now telling us that they were all lying about the resurrection, and concocted a story about how those who crucified the Lord tried to cover up what latter happened at His tomb? In this case, you are the one going against the evidence, common sense, human nature, and the truth. And you have no proof whatsoever for your theory.
Not only does the historical record support the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but multitudes have seen and heard Him from since. I have, and my background didn't lend itself to that. I'm Jewish; believe me, I wasn't expecting to hear from Jesus Christ as Lord and God!
Read our testimonies and other writings/correspondences at www.ThePathofTruth.com. You may find the following article about conspiracies, according to God and His Record, particularly appropriate:
http://thepathoftruth.com/teachings/conspiracies.htm
Paul Cohen
Helena, MT
You have to look at it from a neutral perspective.
On the one hand you have some religious zealots making up a story, several decades after the actual events.
On the other, you have the creator of the universe, incarnate in human flesh, died and risen from the dead.
So, the question is, which of those two things seems more likely?
And that's a nice example of a crepuscular ray on your web site:
I read the article about conspiracy. It seemed to say don't worry, because even conspiracies are Gods work. Unfortunately, being an atheist, this was not particularly something I could relate to.
I was raised Christian and really never bought into all the power and mind control stuff. But I do like the “hidden,” message that we are all in control of an energy source. I’ve spent two years in a theological prophesy class and really the Bible has it correct in many ways. But many others do to at the same time like the American Indians predicted the “Fourth Leg of the Great White Buffalo.” It was born in Nebraska around the time of 9/11 for the first time in their history. That prophesy mirror's the Bible pretty much.
I’ve often wondered if that being around conquering occupiers and witnessing their tyrannical lust for power and greed if it does not make it much easier to accurately predict what they will do in the future.
Just to throw another hypothesis out there. I think the book of revelation can be taken on a world wide scale, a national scale, or a personal scale. For instance when any of the most recent acts of genocide happened if you were witnessing that, would it not be like what the book of revelations talks about, or the Forth Leg of the Great White Buffalo? I would think so.
I’m not pressing the Bible, but that’s all I know. I’ve not looked at much other prophesy from others.
Crap.. now I’m going to be debunked.. Cause I’m in the middle of them.. LOL Do yall talk about this stuff? Or is this place just for like contesting what others say? I hope I’m not out of line. I’m not trying to be. 8)
Debunking is not about contesting what other people say. It's about determining what is bunk and what is not bunk.
Here you're saying that the Sioux White Buffalo Woman myth is related to the Book of Revelations. I really don't see what evidence you are offering to support that though.
I also don't see why current events are more like the Book of Revelation than say the First World War, or even events like the Black Death when one third of the population of Europe was killed in a few years.
I think you need to take a broader view of events in a historical context. Remember "end-times" have been popular for the last 2,000 years. There's always someone who thinks they are living in the end times. The current times are not at all exceptional.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology
In a way that was what I was saying. Maybe I was not clear.. but you said it like I meant it 8)
Maybe I'm a little wordy.. my message get lost
Last edited by Bunkerbuster; December 18th, 2011 at 09:51 AM. Reason: clairification
Very interesting website, thanks! I would just like to note that your link above to exchristian.org results in a 404 error. Not only a 404 error, but a 404 error with attitude, which actually made me less likely to visit their site ever in the future.
Thanks, I've fixed the link. Sorry about that, looks like they had a rather ambitious redesign.
Mick,there are alot of things I would like to say here about religiousmisconceptions/contradictory arguments and positions, a number of which woulddispute much of what Bunkerbuster said, but as I recently joined this blog, Iam beginning to discover this may not be a forum that would support suchdiscussion. I have a few questions of clarity:
1. I like your definition on the main page regarding bunk and the correlationto science/logic, but above you implied debunking is not contesting what peoplesay, which maybe in a semantic sense this may be the case, there certainly isan implied intention to prove that the position taken by a group (often a largegroup) is wrong. It seems you are rather attempting to avoid the issue becauseit is so incendiary and therefore many are unable to discuss without becomingpersonally offended (which I do not fault you for as I have often lostfriends/relatives over attempting to engage religious debate using logic), butI think the longer we are unwilling to engage this issue in the same manner wewould any other CT (I suggest that every religion is in some way a CT). Anyonewilling to examine things they find ridiculous, like the Sandy Hook CT, orchemtrails (which I suggest have as much logical evidence of proof as any religion).My question is, what is the purpose of this forum, in the sense of to whatextent will/can large topics like religion, philosophy and government beexamined by the same objective standards as the other topics are examined?
2. If the answer to my question is no, are you aware of any forum which has adecent community of people looking to engage the noted topics in a respectful,objective forum?
I don't frequent many other forums, so I can't really offer recommendations.
I don't think religion is a great topic for debunking, unless you are going to get into some specific nitty-gritty, like "Debunked: the Bible forbids dancing". But a topic like "Debunked: God Exists", is a little broad - considering you're not going to write anything that's not been said at least 200 years ago.
You are welcome to try though.
http://trutherator.wordpress.com/201...racy-theories/
Allow me to debunk the mother of all “conspiracy theories” that says the disciples master-minded a hoax for the centuries to beat all hoaxes of all time.
One thing is that often “skeptics” make the same mistake that believing Christians often make. Many of them don’t bother with evidence, despite that fact that the very New Testament tells them to learn the evidence.
Simon Greanleaf, once known as the father of the rules of evidence, was the Dean of the Harvard Law School, one day declared he didn’t believe in the silly Resurrection story. A student challenged him to apply his own rule of checking the evidence before declaring confidence in something. He did and the result was “The Testimony of the Evangelists“, the subtitle declaring his newfound faith.
In Acts Paul shared the evidence in every testimony of his faith to rulers and kings, and eventually the Emperor. The New Testament has him debunking the accusation of fable, pointing out the fact of 500 witnesses. The gospels are a record of Thomas’ own testimony as to the evidence, and more blessed are those who must check the evidence of historical fact and logic, not just a thrust through the side.
Roman guards that fell asleep on the job or would allow the disciples to steal the body would be executed on the spot. How can the disciples steal the body right under their nose? Those Roman soldiers went to the priests instead of their commander for that very reason, and that’s why the priests took on the task of dealing with their commanders. That’s evidence that the HIGH PRIESTS KNEW he had risen from the dead too. Their cover story went into the Talmud, by the way, Jesus’ enemies confirm his miracles in the Talmud, claiming they were witchcraft of Beelzebub, like the Bible says.
The description of Jesus’ medical symptoms after the beatings, the sword thrust in the side, the blood and water, etc, confirmed by medical doctors today as accurately describing what the reaction would be to what he went through, including the death while still on the cross.a
The first witnesses to the resurrection were women, something culturally counter-intuitive at the time. Any hoax or made-up fable, even one that “evolved”, would have had men being the first ones to bear the news, not women.
THE REFERENCES TO SKEPTICS AND MOCKERS in the last days refers to those who REFUSE TO BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE.
God says this:
“Prove me now herewith”
“Concerning the works of my hands, command thou me”.
He commands believers to “have an answer” for those who question our faith. That means we must learn the facts that validate the faith.
The faith of Hebrews 11 describes a “fact-based” faith. We have learned so much to count on God’s Word to be true, that it surpasses everything else. So much evidence piles up. A spontaneous universe with dozens of precisely calibrated universal constants, and that cultivates spontaneous bio-generation of life, with its enormously programmed digital coded language and interpretation machinery, and saying nobody designed it, now THAT is truly BLIND faith.
THE END-TIMES HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN LIKE ITS SKEPTICS SAY.
Isaac Newton said it’s not for that time. Paul wrote 2Thessalonians 2 to DEBUNK the any-minute hysteria. For THEN. He said wait, the Antichrist comes first. (Contrary to the mythical Left Behind series fiction)
For two thousand years, Bible scholars said it “the End” would not happen until israel was reestablished as a nation. That’s only one reason so many evangelicals get their theology all screwed up and think God wants them to support the political and secular nation of Israel so much. Christian Zionists are as confused as some of the Jews.
www.trutherator.wordpress.com
Mick, you wrote above:
The idea that Jesus is God only came in around the time of Constantine. The original belief is that Jesus was a human - NOT a part of what the mainstream Christians call 'The Holy Trinity'.On the other, you have the creator of the universe, incarnate in human flesh, died and risen from the dead.
There is one God, not three persons in one. Jesus wasn't and isn't God incarnate at all.
There is the 'person', God, and there is the immortalised human, Jesus, another separate person. The holy spirit is just a term for God's power. It isn't a person any more than electricity is a person.
I agree with what 'Unregistered' wrote above.I have to. It is me. I guess I need to officially register, as your other articles DO look good.
Here's some things to think about with regards to the trinity.
Christ needed saving, God does not.
God exalted Christ, which if he were God, he would not need.
Christ did not claim equality with God, which would point to his acknowledgement as a separate being, would it not?
Who was Christ speaking to on the cross?
God can't die, but Christ did.
Patterns teach me that immortal beings can't die, at least that's what I have trusted, therefore, either Christ didn't really die, and there was no sacrifice on his part, or he truly died, and therefore could not be God.
God can't be tempted, but we know that Christ was tempted.
The Scriptures say that God is not a man, but many times they point out that Christ is one.
And another one...God can't be seen, but Christ was.
I mean God as Christ could do any of that, of course, but I have found that God is the master of plans
and patterns and order, and so if he was also Christ, then there has to be something I am missing to make that logical.
Ask yourself: "Was one part of a trinitarian God sacrificed to another part of a trinitarian God?"
To a trinitarian, passages like Mark 15:34 would read like, "...Myself, myself, why have you forsaken myself?
You know what I'd love to see on this site? Can you debunk the "21 ounces lost at death" as your soul leaving the body? I'd love to see what you find on it.
What have you found on it?Originally Posted by duo2000x
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.c...-21-grams.html
It turns out that the only source for the 21 gram figure is a discredited study carried out in 1907 by a Haverhill, Massachusetts, doctor by the name of Duncan MacDougall. He managed (apparently overcoming any ethical qualms over human experimentation) to put six dying people on a bed equipped with sensitive springs, and claimed to have observed a sudden loss of weight – about ¾ of an ounce – at the exact moment of their death. Having reasoned that such loss could not be explained by bowel movements or evaporation, he concluded he must have measured the weight of the soul. A follow-up experiment also showed that dogs (which were healthy, so they were probably poisoned on purpose by the good doctor) don't seem to suffer the same sort of loss, therefore they don't have souls (sorry, you canine lovers).
This is an excellent example of where pseudoscience and belief go wrong, on a variety of levels. Let us start with MacDougall's claim itself: it turns out that his data were decidedly unreliable by any decent scientific standard. Not only was the experiment never repeated (by either MaDougall or anyone else), but his own notes (published in American Medicine in March 1907) show that of the six data points, two had to be discarded as “of no value”; two recorded a weight drop, followed by additional losses later on (was the soul leaving bit by bit?); one showed a reversal of the loss, then another loss (the soul couldn't make up its mind, leaving, re-entering, then leaving for good); and only one case actually constitutes the basis of the legendary estimate of ¾ of an ounce. With data like these, it's a miracle the paper got published in the first place.
Second, as was pointed out immediately by Dr. Augustus P. Clarke in a rebuttal also published in American Medicine, MacDougall failed to consider another obvious hypothesis: that the weight loss (assuming it was real) was due to evaporation caused by the sudden rise in body temperature that occurs when the blood circulation stops and the blood can no longer be air-cooled by the lungs. This also elegantly explains why the dogs showed no weight loss: as is well known, they cool themselves by panting, not sweating like humans do.
"Knowledge is the antidote for fear."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks