Oddworld Forums

Oddworld Forums (http://www.oddworldforums.net/index.php)
-   Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.oddworldforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Heaven is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark (http://www.oddworldforums.net/showthread.php?t=20278)

Manco 05-19-2011 09:02 AM

:

()
I asked my religion teacher once, "Could God make a pie so hot he couldn't eat it?"

I was subjected to receive a bad comment.

What kind of religious teacher doesn't know the Paradox of the Stone Pie?

OANST 05-19-2011 09:07 AM

:

()
No because DNA proof plus evidence that the shroud was around at least 250 years earlier than when the French nicked it in Hungary was given, confirmed by atheist and jewish archaeologists funnily enough.

DNA proof? Really? Reeeaaaally?

Nemo 05-19-2011 09:34 AM

:

()
DNA proof? Really? Reeeaaaally?

You know how it's usually all GATTACA an shit


Well this DNA was saying stuff like GODDACA

STM 05-19-2011 09:39 AM

Reeeaaally OANST! Also nice to see your back by the way.

OddjobAbe 05-19-2011 09:45 AM

Why don't you link us to a document which displays this DNA evidence?

OANST 05-19-2011 09:47 AM

Apparently the scientists have Shinigame eyes.

I MADE AN ANIME REFERENCE!

Mr. Bungle 05-19-2011 11:29 AM

I believe Jesus was a real person. A crazy, "prophetic" one, but a person nonetheless.

Dixanadu 05-19-2011 11:32 AM

The Romans crucified him, which was the most popular method to get rid of lunatics.

Alcar 05-19-2011 12:00 PM

:

()
Reeeaaally OANST!

How per se have they confirmed it using DNA? You need a DNA sample from the person in question, or a close relative. Last time I checked, neither of those were available.

Alcar...

STM 05-19-2011 12:16 PM

:

Alan Adler: Alan Adler was an expert on porphyrins, the types of colored compounds seen in blood, chlorophyll, and many other natural products. He and Dr. John Heller, MD, studied the blood flecks on the STURP sampling tapes [Heller and Adler, Applied Optics 19, (16) 1980]. They converted the heme into its parent porphyrin, and they interpreted the spectra taken of blood spots by Gilbert and Gilbert. They concluded that the blood flecks are real blood. In addition to that, the x-ray-fluorescence spectra taken by STURP showed excess iron in blood areas, as expected for blood. Microchemical tests for proteins were positive in blood areas but not in any other parts of the Shroud.

Several claims have been made that the blood has been found to be type AB, and claims have been made about DNA testing. We sent blood flecks to the laboratory devoted to the study of ancient blood at the State University of New York. None of these claims could be confirmed. The blood appears to be so old that the DNA is badly fragmented. Dr. Andrew Merriwether at SUNY has said that "… anyone can walk in off the street and amplify DNA from anything. The hard part is not to amplify what you don't want and only amplify what you want (endogenous DNA vs contamination)." It is doubtful that good DNA analyses can be obtained from the Shroud.

It is almost certain that the blood spots are blood, but no definitive statements can be made about its nature or provenience, i.e., whether it is male and from the Near East.
^ That's not were I got the actual info from but I'm to tired to digging around tonight.

Aha, this is something of similar relation in wikipedia, again not quite what I was looking for but I do remember this:

:

Wikipedia no it all:
flowers and pollen proof:
In 1997 Avinoam Danin, a botanist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, reported that he had identified the type of Chrysanthemum coronarium, Cistus creticus and Zygophyllum whose pressed image on the shroud was first noticed by Alan Whanger in 1985 on the photographs of the shroud taken in 1931. He reported that the outlines of the flowering plants would point to March or April and the environs of Jerusalem. In a separate report in 1978 Danin and Uri Baruch reported on the pollen grains on the cloth samples, stating that they were appropriate to the spring in Israel. Max Frei, a Swiss police criminologist who initially obtained pollen from the shroud during the STURP investigation stated that of the 58 different types of pollens found, 45 were from the Jerusalem area, while 6 were from the eastern Middle East, with one pollen species growing exclusively in Constantinople, and two found in Edessa, Turkey. Mark Antonacci argues that the pollen evidence and flower images are inherently interwoven and strengthen each other.
Skeptics have argued that the flower images are too faint for Danin's determination to be definite, that an independent review of the pollen strands showed that one strand out of the 26 provided contained significantly more pollen than the others, perhaps pointing to deliberate contamination. Skeptics also argue that Max Frei had previously been duped in his examination of the Hitler Diaries and that he may have also been duped in this case, or may have introduced the pollens himself. J. Beaulieau has stated that Frei was a self-taught amateur palynologist, was not properly trained, and that his sample was too small.
In 2008 Avinoam Danin reported analysis based on the ultraviolet photographs of Miller and Pellicori taken in 1978. Danin reported five new species of flower, which also bloom in March and April and stated that a comparison of the 1931 black and white photographs and the 1978 ultraviolet images indicate that the flower images are genuine and not the artifact of a specific method of photography.

Alcar 05-19-2011 12:38 PM

So, the first quote explained that it wasn't possible to use DNA. The second one attempts to place the shroud in the vicinity of Israel.

Neither of these prove it was Jesus'.

Alcar...

STM 05-19-2011 12:42 PM

Yes, I realised the DNA thing couldn't be used properly and wanted to put that in because I realised it was wrong. The second one, proves the date is at the time of Jesus, Israel. Not were we thought it was made, France or Turin, 14th century or later.

Manco 05-19-2011 01:20 PM

:

()
Yes, I realised the DNA thing couldn't be used properly and wanted to put that in because I realised it was wrong. The second one, proves the date is at the time of Jesus, Israel. Not were we thought it was made, France or Turin, 14th century or later.

So a piece of cloth existed in the time and place that Jesus is thought to have existed.

Now explain why that proves he existed.

STM 05-19-2011 01:28 PM

Wait hol' on a second, you are telling me you don't believe Jesus existed, shroud or not it is pretty much solid history he did...I mean really I have you mistaken right?

Manco 05-19-2011 01:30 PM

:

()
Wait hol' on a second, you are telling me you don't believe Jesus existed, shroud or not it is pretty much solid history he did...I mean really I have you mistaken right?

Provide evidence and I'll consider it.

e: hard evidence, not "well see this Israeli cloth"

STM 05-19-2011 01:50 PM

I'm sorry I promise I'm not trying to be snarky or down right rude to you but I am so tired from rugby, can I just link you this wikipedia article to you, it gives for and I think against arguments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

OANST 05-19-2011 01:51 PM

Contrary to what almost every single person here, atheist or otherwise, have said, there is no proof whatsoever that there was ever a man named Jesus Christ. There is absolutely no documentation of his birth, imprisonment, or death. I don't mean that to say that the man didn't exist. Probably he did. But there is absolutely no proof.

STM 05-19-2011 01:56 PM

Pliny's documents and the codex (codices) aren't proof? What do you need a physical embodiment of the man to rub his nail holes into your face and take you for a flight round the block?

Manco 05-19-2011 01:58 PM

:

()
I'm sorry I promise I'm not trying to be snarky or down right rude to you but I am so tired from rugby, can I just link you this wikipedia article to you, it gives for and I think against arguments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

From that very article:
:

Material which refers to Jesus includes the books of the New Testament, statements from the early Church Fathers, hypothetical sources which many biblical scholars argue lie behind the New Testament, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources[24] such as Josephus, gnostic and other apocryphal documents, and early Christian creeds.[25] Not everything contained in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable,[26][27][28][29][30][31] and elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, as well as the resurrection and certain details about the crucifixion.[32][33][34][35][36]

The evidence for the existence of Jesus all comes from after his lifetime.[37][38][39] As a result, some critics argue that Biblical scholars have created the historical Jesus in their own image.[40][41] A small number of scholars believe the gospel accounts are so mythical in nature that nothing, not even the very existence of Jesus, can be determined from them.[42]
There's no hard, historical evidence of Jesus' existence that wasn't written after his death. Like OANST said, no proof of birth, imprisonment or death.

OANST 05-19-2011 01:59 PM

Those are about Christians or Christianity, not Christ. Plus, they were written outside of his supposed life span.

Edit: Speedy shit.

STM 05-19-2011 02:07 PM

No one wrote about mother fucking Galileo until three years after he died, y'know why, because he was alive!

Calm down, calm down, ooosah!

Manco 05-19-2011 02:11 PM

:

()
No one wrote about mother fucking Galileo until three years after he died, y'know why, because he was alive!

Calm down, calm down, ooosah!

Funny story, there's actually detailed historical records of Galileo and his family, including birth dates, where they lived, education, occupation. We have correspondence between Galileo and other people, there's even records of public lectures he gave. We even have portraits made of the man, and even his goddamn signature.

Oh, and he invented the fucking telescope, let's not forget that evidence.

e: AND HIS FUCKING TOMB

JennyGenesis 05-19-2011 02:13 PM

http://www.evilscience.co.uk/wp-cont...0643073200.jpg

An actual campaign that was proudly displayed on buses around London. It obviously caused controversy and was made in response to Chrstian evangelical advertising.

Mr. Bungle 05-19-2011 02:13 PM

I think I remember seeing something about that in one of Bullet Magnet' blogs. I thought it was a funny ad.

STM 05-19-2011 02:15 PM

I have a telescope in the bedroom, I like to scare the people over the road...

I give up as well, I = go to bed now due to tiredism of the brain and lower extremities.

^ Funny picture. Made me lol which apparently is healthy be4 beddybubs.

Mr. Bungle 05-19-2011 02:16 PM

Has anyone else noticed how most religious arguments end up being everyone vs. Scrabtrapman?

No offense.

JennyGenesis 05-19-2011 02:17 PM

I remember it spread like wildfire around the bus enthuiast community (a whole different part of my life)

There was even a generator made
http://ruletheweb.co.uk/b3ta/bus/

http://i54.tinypic.com/2qnp1sh.jpg

STM 05-19-2011 02:19 PM

^ Wow Jenny, that bus has you on it!

@Mr Bungle - I never do very well do I?

Mr. Bungle 05-19-2011 02:33 PM

I never said that. I just think that you certainly like to stick to your morals, which is good.

LDG519 05-19-2011 02:35 PM

:

()
Has anyone else noticed how most religious arguments end up being everyone vs. Scrabtrapman?

No offense.

I'm not against scrabtrapman, it's just that everyone seems to post when it's night time in australia so I get to the conversations alot later, and the reason it's everyone against scrabtrapman is cause he is one of the only religiouse people who post here, infact the only 2 I can think of is him and me.

STM 05-19-2011 02:45 PM

:

()
I never said that. I just think that you certainly like to stick to your morals, which is good.

Oh, thank you then. =)

@ LDG - Would you like to meet Lord Stanley?

Rex Tirano 05-19-2011 03:11 PM

If I didn't know who Lord Stanley was, I would assume you were talking about your penis.

I think at times there has been some ganging up, but alot of it comes in response to quite outlandish claims (at least in the eyes of atheists) with very little evidence or anything to back it all up. I also think that leaning on "religious" relics is a very weak defence, alot of these things just magically appeared in the middle ages to help Christians justify the crusades. I'm sure if I really wanted I could find a finger bone of Jesus or the tears of the Holy Mother, it doesn't mean that they're real.

Did you mention Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, otherwise known as Pliny the Younger? He was born in 61 AD and let's assume he didn't start writing fully until he was 18, a mere 45-46 years after Jesus died. That's a long time, especially as Pliny lived in Italy (a mere 1550 miles away), in that time I can imagine it's difficult to get all the facts right. He may have written truthfully what he had been told by others, but stories grow (like Chinese Whispers) with every telling.

- Rexy

STM 05-19-2011 03:13 PM

You have gotta stop assimilating my posts with sexual connotations.

Funnily, I don't really hold much belief in relics but the shroud, is certainly something I'd like to visit, it's the only one I think might be real.

Goresplatter 05-19-2011 11:38 PM

But there is a Hell. And I have seen it...

http://www.minecraftwiki.net/images/...27biome%27.png

JennyGenesis 05-19-2011 11:55 PM

*Checks Bible to see if description matches picture*

moxco 05-20-2011 12:14 AM

Am I the only person who thinks religous arguments are stupid as shit?

:

Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world. An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle, for whom scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained.
-From Wikipedia


Science is discovering our universe and all existence and making rational conclusions based on what is most evident. Religion is something blindly follwed. So in an argument of logic any scientific teachings that contradict religious teaching would automatically be superior as science is something built around fact (not something made to counter religion).

I would have respect for a religious person if instead of trying to create bullshit arguments they said something along the lines of: "Though there is little evidence to support my belief I do not chose to believe just as you do not chose to disbelieve. Therefore I try please my deity."

Tadimo 05-20-2011 12:21 AM

That reminds me of an interesting feature in a game called Dwarf Fortress. When you join a religion their diety appears next to you, however they never reply to you or interact with anything else.

Nemo 05-20-2011 12:49 AM

:

()
That reminds me of an interesting feature in a game called Dwarf Fortress. When you join a religion their diety appears next to you, however they never reply to you or interact with anything else.

The Voodoo religion has a similar belief regarding their creator deity, Bondye. Bondye can not be contacted by the living, and he can not affect the 'real' world.

However, spirits (called Loa,) can be served by the living, and can contact Bondye. Or something similar to that. It's been a long time since I've looked up Voodoo.

Nate 05-20-2011 05:29 AM

Personally, given the strength of proto-Christian following in the years following Jesus' death, it's incredibly unlikely that he was entirely fictional. And I know more about ancient Judea than anyone on the forums (with the possible exception of Splat, but hes not posting in here), so shut up.

:

()
The second one, proves the date is at the time of Jesus, Israel. Not were we thought it was made, France or Turin, 14th century or later.

All the marks prove is that there was a faint imprint of flowers that look kinda like flowers that grow in Israel at the time of year that Jesus died. Not the century that he died. I love that you quoted Wikipedia, but ignored the entire rest of the article, which unequivocably states that the shroud dates from the 13-14th century. Carbon dating doesn't lie.

I knew about that theory, but I chose not to mention it as it's untested and (I believe) ultimately unprovable. Don't get me started on my String Theory Is A Religion rant.

MeechMunchie 05-20-2011 05:38 AM

Of course it's unprovable. Everything we define as 'proof' is contained within our universe.

I thought Jesus's real name was Yeshu or something, anyway.