The Basic Message of the Bible

145 posts / 0 new
Last post
doG's picture
I knew satan was going to

I knew satan was going to make an appearance.

R F's picture
Welcome Hannah,

Welcome Hannah,

I was a devout Catholic for over 40yrs. I now identify as athiest.
After working in Pediatric Oncology I started to question my faith. How can an all knowing super entity allow such suffering amongst these beautiful children? All because Serpent Satan hoodwinked Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden? When was the last time I saw God grow limbs on an amputee? As a result these questions, I started studying Ivy League Biblical Scholars.
The bible is forged. Matthew, Mark Luke and John did Not write any of the gospels. There are Zero first hand accounts of Jesus. Less than 2% of the population could read or write during that time period. Evil is real, the devil is Not. 666 stands for Caesar Nero, not Satan!
Stanford University did a research project on the effectiveness of intercessory prayer. Conclusion: Prayer is a powerful placebo. It taps into the same neurological pathways as meditation. Providing a peaceful feeling.

arakish's picture
Q: The Basic Message of the

Q: The Basic Message of the Bible

A: “All you low life primates are to kneel, kiss my ass, and beg forgiveness for the fucked up mistake I made. You are to obey my commandments, doing as I say, not as I do.” Thus, sayeth the Lord YHWH.

That about sums it up.

I ain't reading all the 110+ replies. My limit for playing catch-up is 40.

Damn! Gone one day to Drs appointments and y'all go ape-shit with over 100 replies. >P

rmfr

doG's picture
Hope you are ok dude. :)

Hope you are ok dude. :)

arakish's picture
I was going to post "Yeah, I

I was going to post "Yeah, I'm fine." But that would be a lie. All the Dr appointments are them trying find out why I am suffering so much pain without my pain management medications. Thus, No, I ain't OK. I am now suffer so much pain even with meds I can hardly walk more than ½km without having to call it quits for at least an hour. And when they had me cease my pain meds for 24hrs, I was in so much fucking pain they had to use morphine at first, then some other pain reliever until I got home and could take my pain meds again. Getting ready for another MRI, a CAT-Scan, and an EMG with a neurologist. Whatever an EMG is…

Beyond that, I am doing OK. Just always in pain. And thanks for the thoughts. Means a lot.

rmfr

David Killens's picture
Take care arakish, it must

Take care arakish, it must suck with so much pain. I care, a lot.

doG's picture
Sorry to hear it. EMG or

Sorry to hear it. EMG or electromyography, is a process to measure muscle electrical conductivity and response, using either surface. or needle electrodes, depending on where they are looking. Back/neck? I am just guessing. I hope they find something they can treat. Hang in there friend.

arakish's picture
Ooooohh! Used to be called

Ooooohh! Used to be called NICT (Nerve Inductance and Conductance Test). Had one of those about 18 years ago. That is how they determined my left leg WAS 10% paralyzed and right leg WAS 40% paralyzed.

Unfortunately, the EMG will be entire nervous system since I have pain everywhere. Just worst from waist down. First MRI showed the third time I broke my back with a ruptured disk that imploded and cut off the spinal cord at L5-S1 and partially at L4-L5. This latest MRI shows the disks are now completely healed and no longer protruding into the spinal cord. Thus, no hint about why the massive pain down there.

I do know the hips, knees, and ankles, both legs, is from too many joint injuries resulting in traumatic arthritis. TA may not be as crippling as rheumatic arthritis, but can be as debilitating.

Thanks for the thoughts David. And also means a lot. Thanks.

And for all others, thanks for your thoughts and well wishes, no need to post them all. I know.

rmfr

R F's picture
https://youtu.be/NIXfDyoYK8Q

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
R F's picture
https://youtu.be/7xVBldyy_Oo

https://youtu.be/7xVBldyy_Oo
Francesca Stavrakopoulou

Moses was Not a real person

https://youtu.be/Pz-z8j67Ids
Professor Bart Ehrman
The bible is forged

https://youtu.be/lnMkHB0vNCE
Dr. Lack Psychologist

https://youtu.be/Q51OTSPQgKg
M Theory, creator of universe

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
arakish's picture
Thanks for the info R F.

Thanks for the info R F. Only problem is I do not hold M Theory as a theory, it is only an idea. It is not testable, thus it is not even a hypothesis let alone a theory. Flabbergasts me how everyone calls it a theory. Same thing goes for that string idea thing.

All the others are great. Thanks again.

rmfr

Calilasseia's picture
Actually, I have in my

Actually, I have in my collection, two papers by Steinhardt & Turok, in which they propose a mechanism for the instantiation of the observable universe, which has observable consequences that we can, in principle, detect with gravity wave detectors once these are up and running (and two now are). If those consequences, in the form of a particular primordial gravity wave spectrum, are duly detected, Steinhardt & Turok pick up a Nobel. At that point, M-theory starts to move out of the realm of speculation.

Diotrephes's picture
Calilasseia,

Calilasseia,

"...two papers by Steinhardt & Turok, in which they propose a mechanism for the instantiation of the observable universe, which has observable consequences that we can, in principle, detect with gravity wave detectors once these are up and running (and two now are)."

Does gravity exist independent of hydrogen? IOW, is gravity a by-product of hydrogen?

Nyarlathotep's picture
The Cavendish experiment

Diotrephes - Does gravity exist independent of hydrogen?

The Cavendish experiment---first preformed over two hundred years ago, and is often repeated by modern introductory physics students---would suggest so.

In short, the force associated with gravity can actually be measured---in the laboratory---between two heavy objects. Typically lead is used because it is very massive and inexpensive.

David Killens's picture
It is already picking up

It is already picking up speed like a locomotive. LIGO has detected gravity waves, and plans are being formed to build a specific satellite system named eLISA to delve in depth. These will be the Hubble of gravity research.

It has already been confirmed that gravity moves at the same speed as light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbqox08OC-A

Diotrephes's picture
David Killens,

David Killens,

"It has already been confirmed that gravity moves at the same speed as light."

Light moves at different speeds.

doG's picture
More please...

More please...

edit...
Holy Shit...we have measured gravity.

I volunteer to go back in time. I will attempt to erase religion in a timeline.
Yes.

arakish's picture
@ Calilasseia

@ Calilasseia

"two papers by Steinhardt & Turok"

Got links for those papers? Love to see if I have read them.

rmfr

Calilasseia's picture
@arakish ...

@arakish ...

I can do better than simply provide links for the papers. I wrote a post elsewhere covering these papers in some detail, and I can reprise that post here. Note I've had to do some abridging of the original, because this board doesn't permit superscript or subscript tags, but in other respects, what follows is pretty much verbatim the earlier post I wrote, the original being readable with the tags in place here (I emphasise that the post in question is a long one, covering numerous topics, and the part dealing with Steinhardt & Turok's work is at the beginning). I've also checked the links to make sure they're still viable, and they are, so you can download the papers in full and read them, if your command of tensor analysis and the Ricci calculus is up to scratch. :)

But before continuing, I'd also like to page @rosedjan to take a peek at this, and see for herself just how far we've come in the world of the empirical sciences. :)

So, without further ado, I present to you ... (drum roll) ...

Testing The Braneworld Collision Theory for the Big Bang

Allow me to present two scientific papers by Neil Turok, one of the world's leading theoretical physicists, which contain the exposition of a testable naturalistic mechanism for the instantiation of the observable universe:

Colliding Branes In Heterotic M-Theory by Jean-Luc Jehners, Paul McFadden and Neil Turok, arXiv.org (12 February 2007) [Download from here]

Generating Ekpyrotic Curvature Perturbations Before The Big Bang by Jean-Luc Lehners, Paul McFadden, Neil Turok & Paul J. Steinhardt, arXiv.org, 19th February 2007 [Download from here]

Let's look at the first of the above two scientific papers. The abstract reads as follows:

We study the collision of two flat, parallel end-of-the-world branes in heterotic M-theory. By insisting that there is no divergence in the Riemann curvature as the collision approaches, we are able to single out a unique solution possessing the local geometry of (2d compactified Milne)/Z2 × R3, times a finite-volume Calabi-Yau manifold in the vicinity of the collision. At a finite time before and after the collision, a second type of singularity appears momentarily on the negative-tension brane, representing its bouncing off a zero of the bulk warp factor. We find this singularity to be remarkably mild and easily regularised. The various different cosmological solutions to heterotic M-theory previously found by other authors are shown to merely represent different portions of a unique flat cosmological solution to heterotic M-theory.

The paper goes on to state as its conclusions:

We have presented a cosmological solution describing the collision of the two flat boundary branes in heterotic M-theory. This solution is a significant step towards our goal of describing the cosmic singularity as a brane collision within the well-motivated framework of Horava-Witten theory. Requiring the collision to be the ‘least singular’ possible, i.e., that the metric tends towards (2d compactified Milne)/Z2 × R3 times a finite-volume Calabi-Yau, has two important consequences. First, it selects a single solution to the equations of motion. Second, it shifts the singularity in the Calabi-Yau volume that one might have naively expected at the brane collision to two spacetime events before and after the brane collision. We have shown these two events to be very mild singularities, which are easily removed by including an arbitrarily small amount of matter (for example scalar field kinetic energy) on the negative-tension brane. Before the initial bounce of the negative-tension brane, and after the final bounce, the solution presented here can be identified with that described by Chen et al. [11].

When the branes move at a small velocity, we expect to be able to accurately describe the solution using a four-dimensional effective theory (see e.g. [18–22] and also [12]). We shall present such a description in a companion publication [23]. If our colliding brane solution is to successfully describe the universe, we must also add potentials capable of stabilising the moduli; in particular the volume of the Calabi-Yau manifold, which determines the value of gauge couplings, and the distance between the branes, which determines Newton’s constant of gravitation. These potentials also permit us to generate an interesting spectrum of cosmological perturbations. Although the required potentials cannot yet be derived from first principles, we can study the consequences of various simple assumed forms. The results will be presented elsewhere [24].

Reference [24] cited above is the second paper I listed earlier, which was described as being "in press" at the time of the publication of the first paper. This second paper opens with the following:

We analyze a general mechanism for producing a nearly scale-invariant spectrum of cosmological curvature perturbations during a contracting phase preceding a big bang, that can be entirely described using 4d effective field theory. The mechanism, based on first producing entropic perturbations and then converting them to curvature perturbations, can be naturally incorporated in cyclic and ekpyrotic models in which the big bang is modelled as a brane collision, as well as other types of cosmological models with a pre-big bang phase. We show that the correct perturbation amplitude can be obtained and that the spectral tilt n(s) tends to range from slightly blue to red, with 0.97 < n(s) < 1.02 for the simplest models, a range compatible with current observations but shifted by a few per cent towards the blue compared to the prediction of the simplest, large-field inflationary models.

The conclusions of this paper are as follows:

The entropic mechanism for generating approximately scale-invariant curvature perturbations in a contracting universe has two appealing features. First, it can be analyzed entirely within the context of 4d effective theory. For those who were skeptical about the ekpyrotic and cyclic models because of their apparent reliance on 5d effects to create curvature perturbations, this work shows that there is another, more prosaic mechanism that can be totally understood in familiar terms. This should terminate the debate on whether it is possible, in principle, to generate curvature perturbations in a pre-big bang phase.

The second attractive feature is that the essential elements occur quite naturally in extra-dimensional theories like string and M-theory. There is no shortage of scalar field moduli, and, quite generically, these fields can possess negative and steeply decreasing potentials of the ekpyrotic form. In this situation, approximate scaling solutions exist in which several fields undergo ekpyrosis simultaneously so that nearly scale-invariant entropy perturbations are naturally generated. Furthermore, if the relevant scalar field trajectory encounters a boundary in moduli space (like that described in Ref. [15]), then as the trajectory reflects off the boundary, entropy perturbations are naturally converted into curvature perturbations with the identical large-scale power spectrum. We hasten to add that, although we have only presented here the concrete example of heterotic M-theory, it is clear that the present formalism is generic and can be applied to other types of pre-big bang models, including those that do not rely on there being extra dimensions.

We have also seen that the entropic mechanism has an interesting signature. Because of the gravitational contribution to the spectral tilt of the entropically-induced perturbations, the spectrum is typically a few per cent bluer than the time-delay (Newtonian potential) perturbations or the density perturbation in inflation. To push the inflationary perturbations into this bluer range requires adding extra degrees of otherwise unnecessary fine-tuning, as delineated in Ref. [21]. In particular, Ref. [21] shows that the natural range for inflationary models is 0.93 < n(s) < 0.97, whereas entropically-induced spectra tend to lie in a range that is a few per cent bluer, roughly 0.97 < n(s) < 1.02 by our estimates. Hence, a highly precise measure of the spectral tilt at the one per cent level or better could serve as an indicator of which mechanism is responsible. For example, a value of n(s) = 0.99 is awkward to obtain with inflation but right in the middle of the predicted range for pre-big bang entropically-induced perturbations.

In other words, the two papers, taken together, provide not only a mechanism for the formation of the universe using a pre-Big-Bang physics that is consistent with the known physics of our universe, but also provides a means of testing experimentally whether or not the conclusions of the authors are correct, namely by analysing the spectrum of gravitational waves passing through the universe. If that spectrum of waves is observed to be shifted toward shorter wavelengths, then this provides confirmation that the authors have alighted upon a mechanism that is consistent with observational reality. Which, needless to say, is why research and development money is now being devoted to the matter of gravitational wave detection, so that this question can be answered either way. Therefore we have a real world phenomenon to observe that will provide an answer as to whether Turok et al have alighted upon a consistent mechanism that is in accord with observational reality for the formation of the known universe, a mechanism moreover that allows the formation of other, causally separated universes and which may even, in the fullness of time, allow us to experimentally form new universes via laboratory means.

Note how I ended the above paragraph. Build a sufficiently sophisticated particle accelerator that would be capable of reproducing the requisite conditions, and that particle accelerator could spawn a new universe by fostering an appropriate braneworld collision. Of course, getting to the point where this is an engineering reality is the hard part, but the above papers make it theoretically possible. All we would need to be able to do is generate a positive-tension brane and a negative-tension brane by appropriate means in a suitable piece of experimental apparatus, collide them, and a new universe would be the result. Of course, that new universe would become causally separated from ours in a very short space of time (around 10^(-35) seconds), so we would have to devise means of detecting events upon such a tiny time scale to allow us to confirm that we had indeed succeeded in doing this in a laboratory experiment, but the fact that we would be able to do so by the simple expedient of harnessing natural processes would make any supernatural "creator" utterly irrelevant. After all, if we could construct a machine that could perform this function, using nothing more than an application of physics, the idea that some magical entity was a necessary requirement would be dead in the water.

Oh look. A testable mechanism for the instantiation of the universe, and all the matter contained therein, that doesn't need an invisible Magic Man. I'd describe this as "Game Over" for supernaturalism the moment empirical data verify this.

Enjoy!

David Killens's picture
String theory is just a

String theory is just a mathematical model/tool (just like calculus or trigonometry). It has not been proven to be "true".

Cognostic's picture
#3 Yes. The name was Yeshua

#3 Yes. The name was Yeshua (Jesus comes from the transliteration of Yeshua into Greek and then English.)
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2008/12/was-jesus-a-common-name-back...

It was a common name.

Diotrephes's picture
Why didn't Epaphras,

Why didn't Epaphras, Aristarchus or Elhanan get new names?

Only the major characters got new monickers to make them more user-friendly for the targeted audience.

Cognostic's picture
How True.

How True.

Diotrephes's picture
Cognostic,

Cognostic,

"How True."

The changing of the character's name to the made-up "Jesus" name is interesting because it shows how deviations and even deliberate errors are introduced and adopted. As it has been pointed out, the minor characters retained their "original" names but all of the major characters got re-named to make them more "user-friendly" to the intended audience. That is just another reason why the Bible is a fairy tale. It has become obvious fiction, just like some people push the fake Ten Commandments from Exodus chapter 20 or from Deuteronomy chapter 5. So if those essential details have been altered how can anything else be trusted?

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.