Quotes from scientists

[PruePhillip]

Many do believe the bible and take if literally

And like all good books, the author put an element of truth to make it believable.

I know little about Shiloh other than general reading and a year when the history of the ancient middle east was a first year elective

The "theory" (for want of a better word) is that the story of Shiloh was just another
invention of the Jews in the Babylonian/Greek era. But Shiloh had been a ruin for
over a thousand years. And if. as our erudite scholars put it, the "Jews" didn't even
have a language, let alone a nation, one wonders how they remembered this Shiloh
account at all, had it happened.

 

[ChristineM]

The "theory" (for want of a better word) is that the story of Shiloh was just another
invention of the Jews in the Babylonian/Greek era. But Shiloh had been a ruin for
over a thousand years. And if. as our erudite scholars put it, the "Jews" didn't even
have a language, let alone a nation, one wonders how they remembered this Shiloh
account at all, had it happened.

Yeah well, thats science for ya, (archaeology is a science) new evidence comes along and science moves right along with it

 

[PruePhillip]

Yeah well, thats science for ya, (archaeology is a science) new evidence comes along and science moves right along with it

View attachment 34315

But sadly, the dismissal of accounts like Shiloh fed into an atheist narrative
that simply won't go away. I doubt anyone will say "They found all that Shiloh
stuff we said was just fiction."

 

[ChristineM]

But sadly, the dismissal of accounts like Shiloh fed into an atheist narrative
that simply won't go away. I doubt anyone will say "They found all that Shiloh
stuff we said was just fiction."

What is an atheist narrative?

FYI : Atheist : a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing more, nothing less. Anything you add to that is simply your own mind making excuses for the human race

Perhaps you mean it fed into the skeptical narrative that you cannot make definitive claims without definitive evidence.

 

[PruePhillip]

What is an atheist narrative?

FYI : Atheist : a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing more, nothing less. Anything you add to that is simply your own mind making excuses for the human race

Perhaps you mean it fed into the skeptical narrative that you cannot make definitive claims without definitive evidence.

Sorry, being sloppy - I should say "bible skeptic." BS'er for short.
Your typical BS'er favors the theory that the Hebrew bible was
written somewhere from the Babylonian Captivity stage through
to the Grecian age. But oddly, stuff written during Babylonian
times (ie Daniel) are supposed to have been written much later.
How to tell? Example, Daniel mentioned the coming of the Greeks
and the breakup of that empire into four. Many take this statement
as a handy way to date Daniel to the death of Alexander. After all,
how could Daniel have known? But then, Daniel speaks of the
Messiah and the Romans - but these verses are simply Ignored.

But it's becoming clearer that the world described by this "Greek
era" fiction actually existed. We know this due to Archaeology.
So if the story of Shiloh has "made up" then why is it in the
Archaeologist trowel? And the animal sacrifice, cut on the right
of the animal, hearkens to the law of Leviticus or Deuteronomy,
which was written by Moses - another figure the BS'ers claim is
just a fiction.

 

[ChristineM]

Sorry, being sloppy - I should say "bible skeptic." BS'er for short.
Your typical BS'er favors the theory that the Hebrew bible was
written somewhere from the Babylonian Captivity stage through
to the Grecian age. But oddly, stuff written during Babylonian
times (ie Daniel) are supposed to have been written much later.
How to tell? Example, Daniel mentioned the coming of the Greeks
and the breakup of that empire into four. Many take this statement
as a handy way to date Daniel to the death of Alexander. After all,
how could Daniel have known? But then, Daniel speaks of the
Messiah and the Romans - but these verses are simply Ignored.

But it's becoming clearer that the world described by this "Greek
era" fiction actually existed. We know this due to Archaeology.
So if the story of Shiloh has "made up" then why is it in the
Archaeologist trowel? And the animal sacrifice, cut on the right
of the animal, hearkens to the law of Leviticus or Deuteronomy,
which was written by Moses - another figure the BS'ers claim is
just a fiction.

Read the first sentence, there is a lot of it about, not necessarily being sloppy but deliberate ignorance of atheism.

I didnt read the rest, i found the weird line breaks blinded me.

And back to the thread

 

[PruePhillip]

Read the first sentence, there is a lot of it about, not necessarily being sloppy but deliberate ignorance of atheism.

I didnt read the rest, i found the weird line breaks blinded me.

And back to the thread

View attachment 34353

Yes, completely accept that. Most people would.
I love archaeology, particularly the early Hominin
stuff. Every day I Google "Lee Berger hominin"
as this guy is about to make a big announcement.
He's found three new hominins - whole articulated
skeletons.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I just heared an awesome one:

"Reality is not what you perceive with your senses. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal." ~Neil DeGrass Tyson

 

[exchemist]

I just heared an awesome one:

"Reality is not what you perceive with your senses. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal." ~Neil DeGrass Tyson

Typical of De Grasse Tyson. This statement does not bear a moment's serious examination.

The tools and methods of science give us observations that tell us about "reality", but not what it "is". Only a fool would claim the theories of science "are" reality. They are models that we hope approximate it, nothing more.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Typical of De Grasse Tyson. This statement does not bear a moment's serious examination.

The tools and methods of science give us observations that tell us about "reality", but not what it "is". Only a fool would claim the theories of science "are" reality. They are models that we hope approximate it, nothing more.

The quote, off course, was stated in a larger context and I think it's a bit... naive, let's use that word, to think that Tyson meant by it what you just said.

What he actually meant, is that science provides us with the best approximation of the true nature of reality. That the methods of science don't suffer from our psychological bias and our brains' and senses' ability to fool us.

 

[exchemist]

The quote, off course, was stated in a larger context and I think it's a bit... naive, let's use that word, to think that Tyson meant by it what you just said.

What he actually meant, is that science provides us with the best approximation of the true nature of reality. That the methods of science don't suffer from our psychological bias and our brains' and senses' ability to fool us.

That's a lot better, certainly. But if it needs a load of context to explain what is really meant by it, it isn't much use as a "saying".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's a lot better, certainly. But if it needs a load of context to explain what is really meant by it, it isn't much use as a "saying".

Every quote needs context, strictly speaking. And a lot, if not most, "sayings", aren't to be taken so mega literally anyway. Like Einstein's "god doesn't play dice with the universe". He wasn't talking about a literal god nore about literal dice.


I think you're being a bit over the top here.

 

[exchemist]

Every quote needs context, strictly speaking. And a lot, if not most, "sayings", aren't to be taken so mega literally anyway. Like Einstein's "god doesn't play dice with the universe". He wasn't talking about a literal god nore about literal dice.


I think you're being a bit over the top here.

Perhaps. I confess De Grasse Tyson annoys me. He affects contempt for philosophy and then makes remarks that make science sound arrogant and which seem to betray a lack of understanding of the philosophy of science.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

 

[exchemist]

View attachment 36126

This one fails, actually. Religion is full of doubt, too. Religious belief cannot be equated with certainty, any more than science can.

But I like most of the others.

 

[exchemist]

View attachment 36128

This promotes the naive idea that until science came along, everyone took everything in the bible literally. This is a myth that has taken root only in the c.20th. Metaphor and allegory have been recognised in the bible from the earliest days of Christianity.