The best virus ever?

At this time of world sickness it is worth reminding you of some hidden historical facts. Typhus, which was endemic in the population of Polish Jews and Russian prisoners of war, along with typhoid fever and other epidemics in places of human density during the war, was the main killer. The allies had destroyed the supply chain of pest control agents and medical necessities, making the situation catastrophic. Stories were constructed and encouraged to cover up the truth. Another virus known as propaganda spread like wildfire, helping hearsay and fiction to reach an unassailable status.
1)Every one died of Typhus as the Chemicals used to kill the bugs couldn't get to the camps were stopped by Allied bombing

2) There were no gas chambers the residue of Zyclon b is nothing more than the natural effect of disinfecting holiday makers to Butlins East Europe* with the chemical over a several year period.

Im sure the 2 statements wouldn't be quite so mutually exclusive if they didn't encompass the same geographic area and period of time

*Altogether now Hi De Heil
 
Yes, because there isn't a scientific hypothesis to disprove.
Quite, so now you should see that you can't prove or disprove that those myths are anything more than myths because there isn't a scientific hypothesis to disprove
 
Hey Higgsy I hope you're alright.

You have an interesting point about the Holocaust, I certainly don't deny it happened but I do question the popular view that everyone died in death camps.
That claim is the one put forward by the deniers as a straw man - because they can then point to other examples and say look this fact we say you are told is wrong - everyone's lying.

I dont think any one claims as many as even half died in extermination camps - the bulk were starved / worked / mistreated to death in various work / slave concentration camps or just plain murdered at various locations


On a personal note there were between 11 and 13 million murdered by the German state - I never hear deniers querying any figures except those pertaining to the Jews, not Russian POWs, not soviet citizens etc.
The 5 to 7 million estimated Esat Europeans is accepted but not the 6 million Jews.
In short the people who accept the nazis were committing genocide against Eastern Europe deny they did the same to the Jews - I feel it says a lot more about the Deniers motives than it does about evidence
 
I think the Abraham-Isaac story is about sacrifice, rather like the main story of the Bible with god sacrificing his own son. It may also be about letting your children go, which is in itself a sacrifice because no-one wants to let go of their child.

There seems to be a number of different ways that one can live, a popular one for the modern age is the bon-vivant and Epicurean style of philosophy where you can just live the good life - do whatever the hell you want and the devil take the hindmost, pleasure is the most important thing. And why not? Life is like a shadow passing, it's short and none of us will be remembered. Why then not go mad? Spend all your money, sleep around, drink all the alcohol, eat all the chocolate and watch all the porn. Live to excess and damn the consequences, pleasure is the only thing that matters. This is a philosophy which is very attractive and one that I used to indulge in a bit, I remember posting about it on the AYR thread a few years back.

Another thing to consider though, and one that isn't immediately obvious, is that this sort of behaviour breaks people and ruins lives. How many threads are there on arrse alone about alcoholism, depression and mental health issues? I think the Greeks knew this because they had "Nothing in excess/Everything in Moderation" and "Know thyself" written on the temple of Apollo at Delphi.

In a very roundabout way I think this is where the Abraham-Isaac story comes in, because another way to live your life is to sacrifice the present for the good of the future. That means taking care of yourself, your family and others by giving up some of the impulsive behaviour and trying to live life to help and support other people, even if it means losing out on the most important things you have. You also have to be prepared to do this because life is essentially suffering. If you make your meaning in life about the pursuit of pleasure then you've already lost because everything and everyone you love and care about will die.

Being in a good place mentally when that happens is very important because that's when other people will need you and it's also very easy to give in to excess and go out on a massive bender to try and avoid the tragedy.


This is merely my own interpretation of the meaning in the story and the Bible in general. I used to take Higgsy's view that the Bible was bs because it couldn't be explained by Science, but that's rather missing the point - how the hell are you meant to explain the Bible when it was written before Science? That's like trying to explain Hamlet with an experiment. I also don't think it has anything to do with belief because at the end of the day whether you believe it or not is entirely irrelevant. It's how you act that matters.

I don't think it would be possible for me to disagree more.

At face value, Isaac was a real person, whose father tied him up and was close to killing him on the instructions of God.

Now, I don't know if you're a father. I assume you're a religious believer, from your posts.

Question: if God spoke to you-and you're quite convinced it's Him- and told you to kill your child, would you?

Personally, I wouldn't, because it's very obviously a wrong thing to do.

As a non-believer, the moment would be rather a crowded one for me, go with it though, it's a thought experiment.

If you'd kill your child on God's command, there is something very wrong with you.

There was something very wrong with Abraham, and with God.


Nobody is someone else's thing to use.

I'd suggest that the moral of the Abraham and Isaac story is "don't pay any attention to religion, it's plainly immoral".
 
Quite, so now you should see that you can't prove or disprove that those myths are anything more than myths because there isn't a scientific hypothesis to disprove
Yes, and I'd never say I could prove anything, as very little of what we think we know could be proven. The best anyone could do is make observations, form a robust hypothesis and attempt to disprove it. That's why I talk of evidence, never proof.

You can't easily prove the assertion that all swans are white, because you can't observe every swan. The assertion that all swans are white would, however, be disproven by a single gray or black swan.
 
If you'd kill your child on God's command, there is something very wrong with you.

There was something very wrong with Abraham, and with God.
On the face of it, yes. A person reading this story literally would rightly say that Abraham was psychotic.
As a myth, we can have a couple of interpretations.

Abraham didn't kill Isaac, so we can say that God's objective was to test him. Your next objection would be that it's quite fucked up to test someone like that, but throughout the Old Testament we're shown that the most holy men are subjected to that kind of testing - Job is one example.
The lesson here is that one might think himself holy and righteous, obeying all kinds of commandments, but how much do you love God? How far are you willing to go for God? What are you prepared to sacrifice?

The second interpretation is that to truly and genuinely love God, one must love Him above all else - even family and friends. That is where real love for others is found. To love anything else above God is idolatry.
 
On the face of it, yes. A person reading this story literally would rightly say that Abraham was psychotic.
As a myth, we can have a couple of interpretations.

Abraham didn't kill Isaac, so we can say that God's objective was to test him. Your next objection would be that it's quite fucked up to test someone like that, but throughout the Old Testament we're shown that the most holy men are subjected to that kind of testing - Job is one example.
The lesson here is that one might think himself holy and righteous, obeying all kinds of commandments, but how much do you love God? How far are you willing to go for God? What are you prepared to sacrifice?

The second interpretation is that to truly and genuinely love God, one must love Him above all else - even family and friends. That is where real love for others is found. To love anything else above God is idolatry.
Bollocks, mate.

On face value, Abraham was quite prepared to kill his own son.

Isaac presumably was utterly terrified.

Love God if you must, but killing your own child because He says so, or because of fearing accusations of idolatry....words fail me.

"Hey God, I love you so much I'm going to do it! Look! Butcher's knife, kid tied up! Sorry son, it's just that I love God more than you and idolatry is a sin. Not as bad as murder, obviously, it was nice knowing you!!"

Interpret it any old way. That's the nuts and bolts of it, and it's central to three religions. All of which can be discarded simply because of this one horrible tale.
 
Bollocks, mate.

On face value, Abraham was quite prepared to kill his own son.

Isaac presumably was utterly terrified.

Love God if you must, but killing your own child because He says so, or because of fearing accusations of idolatry....words fail me.

"Hey God, I love you so much I'm going to do it! Look! Butcher's knife, kid tied up! Sorry son, it's just that I love God more than you and idolatry is a sin. Not as bad as murder, obviously, it was nice knowing you!!"

Interpret it any old way. That's the nuts and bolts of it, and it's central to three religions. All of which can be discarded simply because of this one horrible tale.
But it's a myth, an allegory, and the cold fact is that, in the real world, people do sacrifice friends, neighbours, and even loved ones for a lot less. We only need to look at the snitching that went on under the Stasi, Nazi and communist regimes.
 
But it's a myth, an allegory, and the cold fact is that, in the real world, people do sacrifice friends, neighbours, and even loved ones for a lot less. We only need to look at the snitching that went on under the Stasi, Nazi and communist regimes.

Stop shifting the goalposts.

The story is there in the Bible. Whether it happened or not is largely immaterial. It's held up for approval and guidance.

I'm not sure where you're trying to go with comparing Abraham to a Gestapo snitch. Are you saying you approve? Or that Abraham was, like the Stasi and Gestapo snitches, weak and contemptible?
 
I don't think it would be possible for me to disagree more.

At face value, Isaac was a real person, whose father tied him up and was close to killing him on the instructions of God.

Now, I don't know if you're a father. I assume you're a religious believer, from your posts.

Question: if God spoke to you-and you're quite convinced it's Him- and told you to kill your child, would you?

Personally, I wouldn't, because it's very obviously a wrong thing to do.

As a non-believer, the moment would be rather a crowded one for me, go with it though, it's a thought experiment.

If you'd kill your child on God's command, there is something very wrong with you.

There was something very wrong with Abraham, and with God.


Nobody is someone else's thing to use.

I'd suggest that the moral of the Abraham and Isaac story is "don't pay any attention to religion, it's plainly immoral".

I'm not a religious believer, anyone who takes the Bible literally is nuts. Whether people believe or not is entirely irrelevant. The most important thing is how people live their lives, not what they believe in. I think that was the original idea but it's somehow got warped into 'I'm a good Christian cos I believe all the bs'.

I think the Bible is a moral guideline for how people should try and live their lives and is no different from the Illiad or any other myth. Your view of the Abraham story seems to be to be perceived from a 21st C explanation, but nothing in the Bible should be taken at face value imho. The stories are mythical and allegorical, whether Abaraham existed and spoke to god or not is besides the point. The moral of the story is that people should be prepared to accept the tragedies and sacrifices that life throws at them.

Imagine it's c. 2000 years ago, people are dropping dead all over the place for no apparent reason because there's no scientific explanation for the various diseases. What are you meant to tell someone whose son died?
 
I'm not a religious believer, anyone who takes the Bible literally is nuts. Whether people believe or not is entirely irrelevant. The most important thing is how people live their lives, not what they believe in. I think that was the original idea but it's somehow got warped into 'I'm a good Christian cos I believe all the bs'.

I think the Bible is a moral guideline for how people should try and live their lives and is no different from the Illiad or any other myth. Your view of the Abraham story seems to be to be perceived from a 21st C explanation, but nothing in the Bible should be taken at face value imho. The stories are mythical and allegorical, whether Abaraham existed and spoke to god or not is besides the point. The moral of the story is that people should be prepared to accept the tragedies and sacrifices that life throws at them.

Imagine it's c. 2000 years ago, people are dropping dead all over the place for no apparent reason because there's no scientific explanation for the various diseases. What are you meant to tell someone whose son died?
Sorry, i mixed you up with @scarbrough

I still disagree. The Abraham story is about someone preparing to kill their own child on command.

There's enough in archaeology, history and even ancient holy books to tell us that the way we feel about our family is pretty much a human constant.

Abraham's actions are abominable and were abominable then.
 

Higgs_bosun

On ROPS
On ROPs
I'm sorry my dear friends.. You do not understand. Nor do you have the courage to reason... The religion of history has you gripped by myths. We have much in common because I was also a victim... but exactly like religion, I have discovered science, facts and material that exposes the truth. It's ok... If you can't find it, it's ok...it has been smothered by ignorance.

If you were born in Italy...you are probably a catholic. In fact catholicism is utter, complete and demonstrable bollocks... If you hang onto the narrative of popular war history you are in a majority...fine. It may be fear that prevents you from investigation into the chemistry, biology and general physics involved. The heroes of doubt have been vilified and punished regardless of reality.

Personally I don't care about fools... The main records of investigation still exist and can be examined by those with enough determination to uncover and evaluate them. If you prefer to worship graven images hard luck...
 
I'm sorry my dear friends.. You do not understand. Nor do you have the courage to reason... The religion of history has you gripped by myths. We have much in common because I was also a victim... but exactly like religion, I have discovered science, facts and material that exposes the truth. It's ok... If you can't find it, it's ok...it has been smothered by ignorance.

If you were born in Italy...you are probably a catholic. In fact catholicism is utter, complete and demonstrable bollocks... If you hang onto the narrative of popular war history you are in a majority...fine. It may be fear that prevents you from investigation into the chemistry, biology and general physics involved. The heroes of doubt have been vilified and punished regardless of reality.

Personally I don't care about fools... The main records of investigation still exist and can be examined by those with enough determination to uncover and evaluate them. If you prefer to worship graven images hard luck...
giphy.gif
 

Higgs_bosun

On ROPS
On ROPs
Found this yet?

Jacques Baynac: "There are no proofs, yet I believe."


Robert Faurisson: "There are no proofs, therefore I refuse to believe."


For the first: freedom of expression.


For the second: a sentence of one month to one year of prison, a fine of 2,000 to 300,000 francs, and additional penalties.
 

Higgs_bosun

On ROPS
On ROPs
adminicle
in the law of evidence, something contributing to prove a point without itself being complete proof; supporting material.
 
Found this yet?

Jacques Baynac: "There are no proofs, yet I believe."


Robert Faurisson: "There are no proofs, therefore I refuse to believe."


For the first: freedom of expression.


For the second: a sentence of one month to one year of prison, a fine of 2,000 to 300,000 francs, and additional penalties.
triggered.gif
 

Higgs_bosun

On ROPS
On ROPs
Oh...the imaginary and impossible illustrations of David Olere...a porn artist. Solid evidence indeed. FFS!
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top