|
|
Post by pim on Dec 28, 2012 11:01:31 GMT 10
... the size and floor plan of heaven, and what Jesus had for breakfast doesn't do anything for me. To be fair to Buzz, the board wasn't much better before he joined it. Basically the divide has been between the paleo-atheists on the one hand ("the bible's a fairy tale! It's a no-brainer!") and the paleo-biblical literalists on the other ("God's existence can be scienttifically proved! It's a no-brainer!"). And just in case the above utterly vacuous and irrelevant non-debate isn't tedious and boring enough, throw in the "creationism vs evolution" stuff where Darwin is condemned as some sort of vile atheist conspiracy. It's guaranteed to leave you totally comatose ... There really are better things that one could be spending one's time on ...  |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 28, 2012 11:44:10 GMT 10
Fair point, Pim
Too often the scholarly tone of the debate gets lost amid derogatory static.
Seems some wiseass whipper-snappers think that if they give their perceived enemy a couple of very public wedgies and get them to yell 'Uncle' , they will then recant their views.
Nah. Kicking dirt in people's faces ends up with a total mud bath. When all is said and done, the last punch is thrown, these pernicious pranksters just further antagonize their adversaries, and no one emerges the real victor.
I haven't seen signs to date this whole religion and science debate is going to die anytime soon. So both sides better figure out how to get along somehow. If religion were mere 'failed science', it would have been supplanted by real science centuries ago. So why then is religion thriving in the 21st Century?
As for Buzz and his book: I agree there is some dubious and odious stuff trying to pass itself off as scientific literature. In America Buzz's book would be protected by the first amendment. We all have to accept the fact that some really dubious material is going to get printed. That doesn't mean I am required by law to pay attention to such rubbish.
But it's also understandable that someone who has spent the bulk of his time delving into a particular topic, will bristle when someone challenges his precious (and precarious) findings. No one wants to think they slaved pen-in-hand only to discover it's been for naught. Add to this the nuances of ego, and the publish or perish mentality, it's enough to make him act a bit asinine at times.
For now I've recently evolved (yes I used the 'e' word) to the point where I can just smile and say 'thank you. Then once I've signed off, I can circular-file his anti-God material. Not that hard to do.
But please don't assume that just because I've bought into a position of faith, I've suddenly lost all my natural skepticism and scientific credibility. Religious faith doesn't put questioning to sleep, but on the contrary, exposes the depth of our existence, releasing an endless chain of reflection and a lifelong search that starts out with a humble confession of how little we know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2012 8:55:53 GMT 10
Thats right ignore Ugarit. Ignore Darwin. Ignore Galileo. Philistine. Next you will be telling me there is no such things as germs.      |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 30, 2012 8:58:17 GMT 10
#5
Written by an idiot who will believe anything as long as you convince him you're an expert.
Void of any critical thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 30, 2012 9:01:49 GMT 10
Thats right ignore Ugarit. Ignore Darwin. Ignore Galileo. Philistine. Next you will be telling me there is no such things as germs. Who said I ignored any of that? Just because I respect the men and their field, doesn't mean I have to think they are inerrant and swallow every theory they come out with. Theories are to be challenged, and tested. Findings can be invalidated. Science doesn't stop just because you've arrived at a conclusion you can't bear to part with. BTW: Galileo was a Christian, and Darwin was agnostic, but I don't suspect you plan on converting. ..And Ugarit didn't contradict the Bible; It confirmed it. Perhaps you ought to try reading the Book, then you'll look less silly when you criticize it. --Just sayin' |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 2, 2013 1:31:11 GMT 10
Re:Galileo, It was contrary to Ptolemaic astronomy, not the Bible. The dispute was old science vs. new science. Not science vs. religion. Galileo remained Christian until his death.
Re: Darwin, The only evidence for evolution is the presumption of evolution. And only the narrow- minded think this contradicts the Bible.
Re: Zoroastrians, Josephus, the famous Hebrew historian who had access to historical records long since lost, stated that Cyrus was exposed to the prophecies of Isaiah (44:26-45:7), who, more than 150 years earlier, had called the Persian monarch by name, and had announced his noble role in releasing the Hebrews from captivity and assisting in the rebuilding of the Jewish temple (XI.I.2). It is a fact that Daniel was still living in the early years of Cyrus’ reign (see Daniel 10:1), and he might well have been the very one who introduced the Persian commander to Isaiah’s testimony. Interestingly, there is archaeological information that lends support to the biblical record.
During excavations at Babylon (1879-82), archaeologist Hormuzd Rassam discovered a small (ten inches), clay, barrel-shaped cylinder that contained an inscription from Cyrus. Now housed in the British Museum, the cylinder reported the king’s policy regarding captives: “I [Cyrus] gathered all their [former] inhabitants and returned [to them] their habitations” (Pritchard, 1958, 1:208). As noted scholar Jack Finegan observed: “The spirit of Cyrus’s decree of release which is quoted in the Old Testament (II Chronicles 36:23; Ezra 1:2-4) is confirmed by the Cyrus cylinder...” (1946, p. 191).
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 3, 2013 9:25:10 GMT 10
That 'load of crap' is called 'history'
You'll find it in books, not Google blogs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 3, 2013 9:28:29 GMT 10
As for Josephus, the evidence is insufficient to conclude that Eusebius interpolated it.
Scholars continue to cite his writings as a reliable source, I stand by them.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 3, 2013 14:35:00 GMT 10
Not sure they understand "shyte" in north america. "Shyte" rhymes with "kite" and "might", Sam. It's more BrE slang than AusE. It means "shit". Use of an impeccable bit of BrE slang like "shyte" means Buzz gives himself away as someone who watches British soaps on the ABC (Down Under public radio and public television is called the ABC). I think that's nice. I like it that Buzz watches the ABC instead of the US crap on the commercial television channels. Kinda softens his image ...  |
|
