Freethought & Rationalism Archive

scaramallion · 11-09-2003, 07:39 AM

The Google gods have been smiling upon me.

'The Stargate Conspiracy' available through amazon.

A very long review from a rather strange site run by or for 'Cassiopeans' (?).

Quote:

From the review:
Their conclusion was that Christianity was, essentially, an offshoot of the Ancient Egyptian religion of Isis and Osiris - something that has been stated on these pages from the beginning. They further concluded that the "most carefully hidden of all the secrets of the heretical Knights Templar" was that they believed that John the Baptist was the true Messiah, and that Jesus was, to say the very least, his usurper.

and;

Quote:

Also from the review:
Let me suggest, first of all, that the reader may wish to obtain a copy as soon as possible and read it carefully. After you have read it, go back and read the various channeled materials it discusses with the idea in mind that such material may, indeed, be being presented with a hidden agenda. And, while reading, keep in mind that one of the main tactics of the Control System is to find a means of subtly allying their message with that of the truly Positive so as to generate confusion in untrained minds which would tend on surface evidence to accept these actually contrary messages as benevolent.

For those with a sadistic streak the review might make you laugh or furrow your brow in confusion. Or even both at the same time.

Quote:

Originally posted by Light:
It is just that most people do not understand that all "religious" belief stems from Egypt.

Here is a partial list of known human gods and religions. As you can see, religion has managed to arise in every region on earth.

Now, as I prepare to break into the local supermarket, for alas I am out of tinfoil, I am reminded of the mysterious inscription found in in the King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid; DNFTT.

Light · 11-09-2003, 07:57 AM

Scaramallion,

An interesting "list" of "religions" but none of them is based purely in science.

Correct belief stems from Egyptian actual belief which is scientific.

It really does not require the rituals of religion, faith or anything else, as it is absolute.

As to DNFTTs, we shall make sure not to do so.

It reminds me of the dovetail lifting slot in The Great Pyramid's cross beams which shows that it, amongst others, were lifted into place with a crane.

Hardly a surprise.

scaramallion · 11-09-2003, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Light:
An interesting "list" of "religions" but none of them is based purely in science.

I'm impressed you managed to investigate each and every one of the several thousand gods listed in order to come to that conclusion. Of course, you may have had a helping hand. From here:

Quote:

re�li�gion, (r-ljn), n.
1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
- Emphasis added

From here:

Quote:

sci�ence, (sns), n.
1a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
-Emphasis added

Since science deals in naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena, any religious belief based purely upon it would probably stop being religion. Perhaps this is how you so easily dismissed all those other religions.

Quote:

Originally posted by Light:
Correct belief stems from Egyptian actual belief which is scientific.

You have to help me out, which of the many thousands of One True Beliefs would this be, exactly?

Quote:

It really does not require the rituals of religion, faith or anything else, as it is absolute.

Then why are you calling it a belief?

Light · 11-10-2003, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scaramallion
Since science deals in naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena, any religious belief based purely upon it would probably stop being religion. Perhaps this is how you so easily dismissed all those other religions.

You have to help me out, which of the many thousands of One True Beliefs would this be, exactly?

Then why are you calling it a belief?

Many scientists would say what you have said. But then maybe they do not fully understand science.

From Egyptian science comes the full understanding of God as it explains the workings of the "supernatural". Once the "supernatural" is recognised as being natural as well, i.e. occurring in nature, you have no further need for religion or for belief. To describe God as being supernatural is, therefore, wrong.

Indeed once you ... know ... that there is a God Creator, then that is enough in itself.

As the possibility of there being only One Supreme Being is simply a matter of logic there can only be one scientific logic which says that this IS so.

Therefore scientifically based logic which leads to knowing God transcends religion and "belief".

The need for religion and belief has been replaced by ... knowing.

Given that there is only the one possibility for one knowing of One God, one wonders why there is so much sectarianism and just what on Earth all of these "Theologians" are doing.

God is not the subject of theology or philosophy, when He is known to be A Fact and that this Fact of God is provable by science.

As you say, once you know The Fact belief is replaced by knowing.

The belief is now proven to be Fact.

And that is really what people want to know.

Nowhere357 · 11-10-2003, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Light
Indeed once you ... know ... that there is a God Creator, then that is enough in itself.

Actually, I agree with this. If you have directly experienced God, then you obviously know she exists.

But no one else does, because that is the nature of personal subjective experiences - they're private, and not accessible to others.

Also, the possibility exists that you have misinterpreted the experience.

Given those points, I hope you agree that your subjective experience is not evidence for anyone else.

Light · 11-10-2003, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Actually, I agree with this. If you have directly experienced God, then you obviously know she exists.

But no one else does, because that is the nature of personal subjective experiences - they're private, and not accessible to others.

Also, the possibility exists that you have misinterpreted the experience.

Given those points, I hope you agree that your subjective experience is not evidence for anyone else.

You should understand that it is only normal that God exists in both Male and Female form.

This is evident from the Shu-Tefnut, Masculine-Feminine model of the Eternal Loving Couple.

Many other people are aware of the presence of God.

An adequate proof does not require evidence, it stands for itself, as it serves to confirm that which is obvious to anyone.

Weltall · 11-10-2003, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Light
Many other people are aware of the presence of God.

And many of us aren't. And a lot of the people who do claim to be aware of the presence of a god would claim that their god is different from yours (and probably the One True God TM )

Quote:

An adequate proof does not require evidence, it stands for itself, as it serves to confirm that which is obvious to anyone.

Try running that by any scientist and see what kind of reaction you get. Here's a hint, it's the same reaction most of the people on this board will have when they read it...

scaramallion · 11-11-2003, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Light:
Many scientists would say what you have said. But then maybe they do not fully understand science.

Similarly, you might also want to run this by the same scientist. Remember to stand well back though, they are known to go off at the drop of a hat.

Light · 11-11-2003, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Weltall
And many of us aren't. And a lot of the people who do claim to be aware of the presence of a god would claim that their god is different from yours (and probably the One True God TM )

Try running that by any scientist and see what kind of reaction you get. Here's a hint, it's the same reaction most of the people on this board will have when they read it.

There is only One True God, the "others" are pure fiction.

I think I'll stick to "running it by" God and see what the reaction is.

I don't want to waste my time arguing with pseudo-science and those who get it wrong.

Nowhere357 · 11-11-2003, 05:51 AM

Quote:

You should understand that it is only normal that God exists in both Male and Female form.
This is evident from the Shu-Tefnut, Masculine-Feminine model of the Eternal Loving Couple.

Yes, we typically create gods in our image. Sometimes I wonder if dolphins worship the dolphin god. I know they have pretty good brains, yet they didn't evolve hands - which are theorized as a primary reason that humans developed such large brains (using tools). So what are they doing with all that cortex?

Quote:

Many other people are aware of the presence of God.

Good point. And there are many, many interpretations of that awareness. And it turns out that in general, the interpretation depends on the culture one grows up in.

So what elevates your opinion, above the opinion of many great spiritual thinkers, including the Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammed?

Or even above the opinions of open-minded skeptics, like myself?

Quote:

An adequate proof does not require evidence, it stands for itself, as it serves to confirm that which is obvious to anyone.

Wow, I'm untrained in logic, yet still can tell you that you are wrong. Axioms (which are self-evident) do not require proof; but proof very definitely requires evidence. You are completely wrong.

It's possible you understand the concepts yet use completely non-standard definitions. For example, I can charitably see the concept of axiom in the sentence "An adequate proof does not require evidence". But no-one could possibly know that's what you mean. We have to speak the same language to communicate.

You are not qualified to be teaching, I wonder what makes you think you are. You should drop the pretension of being a prophet or whatever the hell you are doing.

If one wishes to learn the truth - first one must empty the cup. Your cup runneth over.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-09-2003, 07:57 AM	#12
Light Banned Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Here, There & Everywhere Posts: 1,253	Scaramallion, An interesting "list" of "religions" but none of them is based purely in science. Correct belief stems from Egyptian actual belief which is scientific. It really does not require the rituals of religion, faith or anything else, as it is absolute. As to DNFTTs, we shall make sure not to do so. It reminds me of the dovetail lifting slot in The Great Pyramid's cross beams which shows that it, amongst others, were lifted into place with a crane. Hardly a surprise.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.