The Urantia Revelation

[LuisMarco]

Um, no, that video predates most of the discussion here, which pretty much beats the dead horse that the Urantia Book is best used as composting material.

 

 

It's too bad that they'll get attention for this sort of drivel when we have a robust scientific research program that the media doesn't seem to want to write much about, :phones:

Buffy

Buffy's right.

The Urantia was a pretty good hoax; but it was written in the late teens or early twenties of the1900's and published in Chicago ..

But They didn't understand Plate Tectonics at that time.

So now its all absolute bullshit scientifically.  

 

I didn't bother to read the first 5 pages of this thread, because this has been debunked here before by Turtle and others..

 

I tried reading it... and even with an open mind I could tell it was garbage...

 

Move along.. It was a 1920's bullshit Hoax.

Blah-blah-blah!...

[CraigD]

Blah-blah-blah!...

LuisMarco, your posts breaks several of our site rules. Please familiarize yourself with these rules, and follow them. If you don't, your posting privileges will be suspended.

[LuisMarco]

OK but it's just that they just dont acknoledge some of the advanced & so very accurate science of URANTIA, thats all. . . .

[CraigD]

OK but it's just that they just dont acknoledge some of the advanced & so very accurate science of URANTIA, thats all. . . .

I think you’d find, if you read all of the posts in this thread, that we acknowledged and discussed in it most of the major claims that the Urantia Book contains science more accurate than was known by people with good general educations during the years it was compiled, 1924 to 1955.

 

More important, I think, than how closely the Urantia Book matched the best science of 1924 to 1955, is how closely it matches the best science of today, especially where that present day observation surprisingly overturned earlier theories. This section of it’s Wikipedia article has a good collection of examples. The one that most convinces me that the Urantia Book was not written from information given by “celestial beings” with spaceflight and astronomy more advanced than ours in the 1970s is the Urantia Book’s failure to correctly describe the rotation of Mercury, which most astronomers expected to be tidally locked to the Sun, as is described in the Urantia Book. Astronomers were surprised when, in 1965, radar observations of Mercury showed that it is not. I find it implausible beyond belief people with the spaceflight and astronomy ascribed to the celestial beings could have made such an error, so I conclude that the Urantia Book was not written from information from such beings, but from the best science its human authors could find.

 

I think the authors of the Urantia Book had good intentions. The idea that we are Earthlings are not alone in our galactic neighborhood, but within and soon to join a greater galactic civilization, and had thus be on our best behavior, has, I think, a socially positive influence. I believe many of the people involved in the original compilation and publishing, and the ongoing promotion of the Urantia Book, believe it to be what it claims. However, because of the poorness of its science in light of observations made after its publishing, I believe it to be a work of fiction being promoted as nonfiction, a hoax.

 

The 1951 movie The Day the Earth Stood Still, based on Harry Bates’ 1940 short story “Farewell to the Master”, promotes this idea of Earth joining a greater civilization, but as a work of fiction rather than a revealed truth. The Day the Earth Stood Still is, I think, more socially effective and influential than the Urantia Book and similar works, such as the various tracts of Seventh-Day Adventists and Scientologists.

[LuisMarco]

one need only see other Science items in URANTIA to see that it was far advanced ahead of its time in some instances, with some of it being science outdated & inaccurate alright, but examples of accurate URANTIA Science aboud, like the above youtube video i provided & these following ones:

 

http://ubthenews.com/ (Verifying History & Science in The Urantia Book.)

 

(...)

Edited January 26, 2015 by LuisMarco

[Buffy]

Although true believers consider such evidence obvious, that's the problem: it's not obvious at all, in fact it's often easily refuted. Since you've done nothing to present specific evidence, there's nothing to respond to in your posts other than to try to direct you back to many of the earlier posts in which this is discussed. If you'd like to re-debate some of these issues, some of us may find the time to waste on the endevor.

 

Realize that the main reason that this thread is here at all on a science forum like this is that we strongly support the right of folks with foolish ideas to demonstrate that they don't really have the slightest clue as to what they're talking about. 

 

 

O dear discretion, how his words are suited! :phones:

Buffy

[LuisMarco]

Of course I presented the Proofs already by directing you to the UBtheNEWS URANTIA website.

Now anyone can see by themselves that there IS Proof of URANTIA's accurate & advanced Science.

(...)

[Buffy]

[Mod note: For those of you watching, I looked so you don't have to (don't try this at home, I am a professional), so to summarize, it's tl;dr.]

 

If you won't take the time to present the "proofs" and debate them here, you simply look like yet another "true believer" who can't support their own beliefs when questioned. 

 

 

He knows me as the blind man knows the cuckoo, by the bad voice, :phones:

Buffy

[Racoon]

Will you Marry me Buffy..???

 

Pimps don't cry... they never shed a tear  

 

:xmas_tree:  :dog:

[Racoon]

Although true believers consider such evidence obvious, that's the problem: it's not obvious at all, in fact it's often easily refuted. Since you've done nothing to present specific evidence, there's nothing to respond to in your posts other than to try to direct you back to many of the earlier posts in which this is discussed. If you'd like to re-debate some of these issues, some of us may find the time to waste on the endevor.

 

Realize that the main reason that this thread is here at all on a science forum like this is that we strongly support the right of folks with foolish ideas to demonstrate that they don't really have the slightest clue as to what they're talking about. 

 

 

O dear discretion, how his words are suited! :phones:

Buffy

 

 

The Urantia was a pretty elaborate hoax.. Someone, some people, at a time long ago really put a lot of effort into it..

 

Thats what I find most rewarding about it.. Its total Bullshit.. But someone had to type all that **** out.. Imagine someone typing out all that back in 1920.. Coming up with names and words..  They basically used a Bible for reference.

Imagine what they were thinking.

 

Its a little piece of history.  

[Turtle]

...

I think the authors of the Urantia Book had good intentions. ...

Nonsense. They were a bunch of rotten cruds bent on promoting racial supremacy by any and all lying and deceptive means necessary. We well covered the issue in this thread. >>

Urantia Book - Who Could've Hoaxed This?

 

That this thread -accompanied by similar BS- comes up in a search of recent threads tells me nothing much has changed here. Too bad.

[element117]

"even the smallest person can change the world" Galadriel

 I reckon that change can occur if  we don't give up. The old days  were awesome, suppose we can try again, Turtle?

Some fractals? maybe some riddles? some juicy neuroscience? let's just pass on the "theology" 

[Turtle]

"even the smallest person can change the world" Galadriel

 I reckon that change can occur if  we don't give up. The old days  were awesome, suppose we can try again, Turtle?

Some fractals? maybe some riddles? some juicy neuroscience? let's just pass on the "theology" 

Ah dear friend ( ) , it's a nice sentiment but I'm not holding my breath. The name of the game seems to be host the spammers and their malware and coddle the theists, crackpots, and psychotics while stifling their critics. I gave it 5 months leave and nada. By all means try some fractals or other such actual science & I'll try to contribute, but don't be surprised when it gets drowned out by the BS and/or turned into everything but what you intend. Just because I have a bad attitude doesn't mean it's not justified. :lol:

[Buffy]

Hi Turtle!

 

Just to let you know, we've got a handle on the spammers although it actually takes me about 30-60 minutes per day just to weed through the ones that get through the multiple spam filters we have set up.

 

And while I too think Craig misspoke in the sentence you quoted him on, there's a quite a bit less coddling going on these days, even though we don't just outright delete anything that's not mainstream accepted science, since that's actually our niche at the moment, although as we get through this rebuilding phase, maybe we'll move on to that.

 

But at the moment, we're filling a need which is little covered on the internet, which is to provide a place to make fools of the crackpots and their stupid ideas. One of the things that's struck me about climate denial for example that while there are hundreds of web sites devoted to promoting outright falsehoods about client science (that are dutifully linked to by Fox News and Newsmax and other bought-n-paid-for corporatist propaganda sources), it's unbelievably hard to find sites that actually refute this garbage because the "true science" sites are all above this, choosing to simply ignore junk science with the idea that it'll just go away. Not talking about it makes it really easy for folks that might otherwise be convinced its just to say "well, maybe this stuff is true, because the people who are against it won't even address it."

 

Now reasonable minds can differ on the approach to this dilemma, but I personally argue that there ought to be some places that get down in the mud and beat the crap out of this stuff.

 

That doesn't mean we don't do anything except that, just that it's our market differentiator, so we do indeed want to have the rest of real science here to flesh that out as well.

 

And to get there we need sane contributors too, so we welcome you back with open arms no matter what kind of attitude you bring! :cheer:

 

So jump right in, and we'll watch your flanks on what you want to contribute, and maybe we can figure out how to promote it more than it has been in the past. :cheer:

 

Note also, the interim management who um, "deemphasized" physics and math on the site is no longer with us, so it's back.

 

 

Good management is the art of making problems so interesting and their solutions so constructive that everyone wants to get to work and deal with them, :phones:

Buffy

[Turtle]

Hi Turtle!

Hi Buffy!

 

Just to let you know, we've got a handle on the spammers although it actually takes me about 30-60 minutes per day just to weed through the ones that get through the multiple spam filters we have set up.

Good to hear handle, sorry to hear minutes.

 

And while I too think Craig misspoke in the sentence you quoted him on, there's a quite a bit less coddling going on these days, even though we don't just outright delete anything that's not mainstream accepted science, since that's actually our niche at the moment, although as we get through this rebuilding phase, maybe we'll move on to that.

To rebuff or not to rebuff; that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler to... erhm...

 

But at the moment, we're filling a need which is little covered on the internet, which is to provide a place to make fools of the crackpots and their stupid ideas. One of the things that's struck me about climate denial for example that while there are hundreds of web sites devoted to promoting outright falsehoods about client science (that are dutifully linked to by Fox News and Newsmax and other bought-n-paid-for corporatist propaganda sources), it's unbelievably hard to find sites that actually refute this garbage because the "true science" sites are all above this, choosing to simply ignore junk science with the idea that it'll just go away. Not talking about it makes it really easy for folks that might otherwise be convinced its just to say "well, maybe this stuff is true, because the people who are against it won't even address it."

 

Now reasonable minds can differ on the approach to this dilemma, but I personally argue that there ought to be some places that get down in the mud and beat the crap out of this stuff.

 

That doesn't mean we don't do anything except that, just that it's our market differentiator, so we do indeed want to have the rest of real science here to flesh that out as well.

Niche noted. Let the crap beating ensue.

 

And to get there we need sane contributors too, so we welcome you back with open arms no matter what kind of attitude you bring!

*hugs*

 

So jump right in, and we'll watch your flanks on what you want to contribute, and maybe we can figure out how to promote it more than it has been in the past.

If you are referring to my math exploits, I won't be doing much of that anymore. Over the last year or so I have been seeing an unsettling amount of what appears to be my material bandied about without proper recognition and it's an understatement to say I'm madder than a wet hen about it. The work goes on however just as it did before I came and it is as satisfying and fruitful as ever. As always my deepest genuflections to you and all my collaborators over the years. :)

 

Note also, the interim management who um, "deemphasized" physics and math on the site is no longer with us, so it's back. 

 

Good management is the art of making problems so interesting and their solutions so constructive that everyone wants to get to work and deal with them, :phones:

Buffy

Acknowledged o Queen Maven.

 

Oh...better say something on topic I suppose. Sadler wrote Urantia and helped inspire the Nazis to genocide. Nuff said.

[Munch12]

Hello, I am new here, and I'll tell you how the Urantia Book came to me.  In 1978 I was a plumber on a job in Colorado, and my new helper had a copy of this book, which he let me read.  As I did, I became so engrossed, that I got a copy for myself.  The "author(s)" were of no interest to me, because the content is the most important.  It is so complex, that I could only read parts at a time, but all the parts put together became one idea in my head. 

Now here's my question to the forum.  On page 421, "seraphic organization", I found these numbers (only place in the book where there are numbers like this), which reminded me of Nicola Tesla's theory of "3', "6", and "9".   In this piece below, I see, 12 pairs=3, 24 seraphim=6, 144 pairs=9, 288 seraphim=9, 12 battalions 1,728 pairs=9, 3,456 seraphim= 9, a seraphic unit 20,736=9, or 41,472 individuals=9, a legion 248,832=9, or 497,664 individuals=9, 12 legions 2,985,984 pairs=9, 5,971,968 individuals=9, 12 hosts 35,831,808 pairs=9, or 71,663,616 individuals=9.  To me, the numbers 3, 6, and 9, equate to energy, where the number 9 controls. 

Am I crazy, or was Nicola Tesla a "sleeping subject" or the other way around? or are these numbers in my Urantia Book just coincidence?