What is Digg?302 Comments
- benmandude, on 12/28/2007, -28/+86Just because some event, place or person is confirmed scientifically doesn't mean much. I'm sure Jesus was a person. Was he the son of god, I doubt it.
- inactive, on 12/28/2007, -8/+44It is always interesting to learn of a possible / probable scientific explanation for some ancient legend. The underlying cause of the event - natural or supernatural - depends largely on the individual's beliefs, of course.
- stigma15, on 12/28/2007, -13/+47You will have to forgive our skepticism. It's just that when a book says the Sun and Moon were created on the same day, and that stars are set in "firmament" in the sky on the first page, any further musings on astrophysics carry a little less weight.
- blaze03, on 12/28/2007, -9/+40Likewise, everytime science contradicts or disproves a Biblical event, place, or person (which is quite often), believers are very quick to dismiss it with "it wasn't meant to be taken literally."
Your comment doesn't surprise me, rjwusa. Christians must be used to picking and choosing which parts of science to believe in, because they already do that to the Bible. - inactive, on 12/28/2007, -72/+99I always find it interesting when science closes in on, or confirms a Biblical event, place, or person. Meanwhile, I'm sure the non-believers are very quick to distance themselves from researchers who make Bible confirming discoveries, and that the non-believers will work overtime to discredit the scientists and even go so far as to ostracize them and to ruin their reputations.
Christians should pray that intellectually honest researchers and scientists are taken seriously and blessed in their work. - tas08, on 12/28/2007, -10/+34I believe he was, but I believe you made a fair statement. There's a fair amount of faith involved to make that leap.
- dunderballer, on 12/28/2007, -3/+25Yeah, God wouldn't leave evidence of his works, would he? I am so sick of the notion that religious beliefs are exempt from logic, empirical evidence, and reason.
- RogerStrong, on 12/28/2007, -11/+32Alrighty.
This isn't so much bad science as bad history. The Star of Bethlehem as a single bright star was only invented in the last century - popularized in greeting cards not much differenly than the modern Santa Clause. If you go back 120 years, no-one would know what you were talking about.
The three wise guys were astronomers. The word used in the Bible for "his star in the east" was also used for planets. The big bright star isn't part of the Bible or Christianity or "ancient legend" any more than red-nosed reindeer.
(OK, that wasn't secular or an attack on Christianity - it was neutral. Sorry.) - nospinhere, on 12/28/2007, -8/+27So wtf does this have to do with a radar shot of the east coast?
- Ceeman, on 12/28/2007, -15/+33Next up he found a cat in a hat. Just like another book said he would.
- salmonmoose, on 12/28/2007, -0/+14Let's clarify "history" a little further. There were not 3 wise men. There were just wise men, it's possible that there were 3 of them, but it's never mentioned. Just as it is never mentioned that Adam ate an apple.
- inactive, on 12/28/2007, -3/+16His implication is that the Bible exists and contains certain information, and because one particular claim or fact in the Bible is true, the whole Bible is true. Total logical fallacy.
- MadSquirrel, on 12/28/2007, -2/+15Actually, what is really interesting is that the Magi were most likely Chaldians (gentiles), and knew about what to look for by their connection with Daniel (The Book of Daniel). It is an interesting study for those that might be interested in this subject.
- tasadar24, on 12/28/2007, -6/+19But catholicism is an institute of man, created 300 years after your jesus may or may not have existed, and ruled by men of this world. There has been plenty of conflict between catholicism and reason. Spanish Inquisition? Galileo? etc.
- BadAstronomer, on 12/28/2007, -11/+22Well, given that the guy said it was in the constellation Aquila when it's really in Serpens, and that it's been dated to to 1700 years old, I won't give much credence to his idea.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 12/28/2007, -6/+16You could make the exact same claims if a Scientist tried to prove that Disney's Lion King was a factual story. There could be a scientist doing honest work finding a pride of lions where the alpha male was trampled by a bunch of wildebeest and his sibling (who happened to have a scar on his face) took over the pride, until the original alpha male's son fought and defeated "scar" all in the context of normal lion behavior. Even if all this were true, that does not make the Lion King a true story.
This Scientist would almost certainly be the subject of ridicule even if all his science was valid. This is because his hypothesis is ridiculous. The same is true for trying to scientifically prove the factual correctness of the bible. You can prove a whole bunch of little details in the bible had a "high" probability of being based on fact, but this does not lend any credibility to the idea that Jesus is the son of God or that there even is a God.
All of the above even assumes that we know exactly what happened to the lions we believe are the actual lions from the Lion King. Now take that evidence and make it like 2000 years old and that we only have 3rd and 4th hand accounts hundreds of years after the event took place. Now I am thinking it would be orders of magnitude easier to find a real life Lion King. - TsuruchiBrian, on 12/28/2007, -2/+11Scientists are more than willing to accept the possibility that all String Theories may be wrong. In fact there are many scientists who do not believe it is true. Also if there is convincing evidence that it is false, we as followers of the scientific method will have no problem discarding the theory as a false one.
Are you willing to do the same for the Bible? Are you willing to not just consider the possibility that it's all just a fabrication, but to accept that no matter what happens, that there is a probability greater than 0% that it is false?
Also we as rational beings are not bound to believing everything that "science" has to say. There is no single entity called "science" that has a single unchanging opinion. We are free to believe or disbelieve whichever parts we want. We may be wrong. But if you believe something like "The bible is the word of God", it becomes more than slightly contradictory to then pick and chose which parts of the Bible are true and false.
If there are certain parts of the Bible that are false, then the hypothesis that "The word of God is 100% true" or "The bible is the word of God", are called into question, and the Bible as a whole can not be presumed 100% true any longer, by virtue of the fact that it is the Bible.
I think this is where the need to pervert science into vindicating "provable" claims in the Bible such as Noah's Ark. It's just desperation. The church no longer has the power to simply torture and kill people for heresy in the civilized world. - 10scott10, on 12/28/2007, -4/+13I hope that people decide to look things up in april, around the time he was actually born. the december thing was just to please the pagans and their solstice rituals.
- gllopc, on 12/28/2007, -22/+31Result #1: Science proves a bright object in the sky at time of Jesus' alleged birth. Christian apologists everywhere scream "See? SEE?!".
Result #2: Science proves there was no bright object in the sky at the time of Jesus' alleged birth. Christian apologists use this as proof that the scientific community is involved in a theory to squash Christianity, yelling "See? SEE?!". - Abaddon1125, on 12/28/2007, -2/+10That's a cute little straw man you built in that reply. You know why theories in science are so often supported by scientists despite the capacity to "prove" them? Because the make predictions (which come true) and because they stand up to rigorous testing by the scientific community. We say it's "neat and tidy" because it not only answers questions, but it stands up to the scrutiny of the scientific method itself. In no way does the Bible do this, which is why skeptics tend to dismiss it as pseudoscience at best, and poetic drivel at worst.
- gllopc, on 12/28/2007, -1/+9Exactly. IMHO, only meeting God could truly provide the extraordinary proof that God exists.
- Gerz1219, on 12/28/2007, -1/+8"As a thinking human being, would you stick to your present beliefs or adapt to new understandings?"
Did this line really just follow a defense of an institution which didn't officially admit that the earth revolves around the sun until 1992?
Anyway, the whole nativity story only appears in the later gospels of Luke and Matthew, and the two accounts conflict with each other. The "Star of Bethlehem" is a fictional invention that serves to add credibility to the story. Scientists might as well waste their time trying to identify exactly which modern Greek mountain peak was once inhabited by Zeus. - Murdats, on 12/28/2007, -1/+7that is the stupidest argument every, abiogenisis is still very very much a work in progress, most people with an ounce of sense will realise that much research is being done into the field and theories will change frequently till we have a larger set of evidence.
- cipher64, on 12/28/2007, -3/+9To all the Atheists....to my understanding your gripe with religion is that it breeds hatred, well come on if you are intelligent enough to figure out that there is no Creator then you must have realized that it is not the religion that leads to war and killing it is the human nature. I can assure you if there had been no religion humans would have found a gazillion other reasons to fight and kill, it is not about faith it is about power. And my guess is no matter how much anyone might not want to believe in the existence of a God they still want to be a God themselves.
If the following argument makes any sense to you then you might want to think again about the existence of a creator: if a ship(earth, universe,etc) laden with all sorts of goods is traveling on a set path(the orbits) would you believe there is no one steering that ship? - theodenking, on 12/28/2007, -4/+10*thing
Digg's edit system sucks.
I grew up being told that there were Roman records that mention Jesus. But that's not true. The first non-Christian sources only mention him indirectly (eg. there is a sect called the Christians and they follow the Christ) and several decades later. So there are theories that the early Christians invented him to set them apart from similar cults at the time that worshipped a demi-god who sacrificed himself for mankind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus# ... - actorboy, on 12/28/2007, -2/+7@ Abaddon1125 & TsuruchiBrian
I think the problem lies in that parties on both sides take the Bible entirely too literally. Some say creation took 7 days, so science is false. Others say creation took billions of years so the Bible is false. However, if you look at the the story of creation in the Bible as a parable, you will find many remarkable similarities to currently held scientific beliefs. Does it prove anything one way or the other? Nope. But it is nonetheless interesting how the Bible's version was put into story and writing long before science reached similar conclusions. Let's look at a few:
The birth of our solar system and planet:
The Bible -- the earth was without form, everything was dark, the sun came into existence, the earth was liquid (water), land formed
Science -- space dust gathered 4.6. billion years ago, the sun ignited 1 million years later, the earth was liquid (molten), land formed
Animal life:
The Bible -- started in the sea, moved to land, culminated with man
Science -- started in the sea, moved to land, culminated with man
Pretty amazing similarity of events and order when you consider it. Again, doesn't prove a damn thing, but it should definitely be looked at by both sides with an open but critical but open mind. And by critical, I mean of your own beliefs as much as anyone else's. By challenging what we each hold as undeniable fact, we will perhaps find the truth somewhere in the middle. - Abaddon1125, on 12/28/2007, -1/+6But it would be a poor argument. That the sun and the moon were created in one day is outright false. In the grand scheme of things our sun is a relative newcomer to the universe, and the moon is even more so. To say (which I assume you will) that they were created on the same day because all matter showed up in the universe that day is a beautiful example of the human capacity to find patterns in anything, even texts thousands of years old.
- Miaa, on 12/28/2007, -0/+5Because its science and he was curious.
- tas08, on 12/28/2007, -0/+5I agree. Whether you believe the events were orchestrated by a supernatural cause or not, I being religious (Catholic) like to see when science shows that from a secular standpoint it (whatever it may be) was possible. Also, fyi, things like the star are not doctrine or dogma, you don't have to believe in them, they are just part of tradition but whether or not there was a star (to stick to the topic) really has little/nothing to do with the actual faith, but it's cool to see when a tradition like this may be based on reality!
- TsuruchiBrian, on 12/28/2007, -1/+6I think YOU should read that one more time and tell me where I have made a circular argument.
- flyingmeteor, on 12/28/2007, -0/+5This is 100% true, Jesus was born before Christianity existed, the wise men do in fact predate Christianity. You are so smart!
- gllopc, on 12/28/2007, -1/+6I mostly agree with you; but I'd say that science isn't a group of people, but a collection of data on subjects and a method for acquiring that data. If the data is inconclusive, then it's inconclusive. Religion, on the other hand, has a bad track record of collecting any real data, as well as proving their claim that God exists.
- wonderchemist, on 12/28/2007, -7/+12From the image I'm guess it has something to do with the weather? Ball lightning perhaps?
- Murdats, on 12/28/2007, -0/+5most legends have their basis in actual events.
- Testiculese, on 12/28/2007, -0/+5Jesus wasn't born on the 25, people. Christmas wasn't a Christian holiday until a few hundred years ago. It is a pagan holiday for the Winter Solstice that the Christians stole in order to coerce the pagans into Christianity.
- ErnstHot, on 12/28/2007, -1/+6Minor nitpicking...
"most people with an ounce of sense will realise that much research is being done into the field and hypothesises will change frequently, and new hypothesises will be formed, till we have a large enough set of evidence to support a theory." - daEvan, on 12/28/2007, -1/+5Well, I may not believe in God, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that I have to MEET him to believe in him. If God really existed he could easily convince me of his existence through some super cool *****.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 12/28/2007, -6/+10Ever heard of "burden of proof"?
As best I can tell this "scientist" (I will give him the benefit of doubt), only came up with a hypothesis of how the Star of Bethlehem MAY have an origin in reality IF the story is true.
Thats a BIG MAY and a BIG IF.
The burden of proof is still in your court dude. - SocialPoison, on 12/28/2007, -1/+5The same guy that gave you a digg account and an opinion?
- terath, on 12/28/2007, -1/+5Umm. You don't understand causation do you? A correlation study is not a causation study. Say A happened and you claim B happened because of A. We prove A happened. This says NOTHING about B being caused by A. That's basic logic. Not militant atheism.
- inactive, on 12/28/2007, -3/+7Something other than what was written by the iron-age barbarians who composed the old testament.
- browny1978, on 12/28/2007, -10/+14Im an Athiest,but i like ot read how scientists prove or disprove biblical events, but remember most event that happened in the bible also can be seen in most holy books, so what happened, still wouldnt make me beleive in god
- Neiby, on 12/28/2007, -0/+4Well, prove to me that Apollo isn't driving the Sun across the sky first! Can you prove it??
- nitsuj, on 12/28/2007, -0/+4"The Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Men who personally knew Jesus."
False. Theologians believe that Mark was the first gospel written about 70 CE followed by Matthew and Luke (up to 15 years later) and then John. The authors are unknown. This means that none of them knew Jesus at all.
As for Tacitus - there's a strong possibility that his writings may have been derived from Christian material circulating in the 2nd century. Chrestus was in fact a common Greek name.
The Pilate 'witness' is also dubious.
Did you know that the link you posted refers to Publius Lentullus - who is actually in the Catholic Encyclopedia as a fictitious character? - sabach, on 12/28/2007, -2/+6"The first, is a nova — a combination of two stars that shines thousands of times brighter than a normal star" This statement alone makes me wonder where he got his degree.
- Mattyandco, on 12/28/2007, -1/+5More life doesn’t suddenly come into existence today because the environmental conditions have changed. As soon as the first life form started growing and reproducing it would have started changing the environment, consuming the raw materials that spawned it to begin with. After a few hundred million years there wouldn't be enough life forming materials left for new life to form spontaneously. And for it not being reproduced in a lab, YET, scientists have had amino acids and sugars form after a while (Weeks) in simulated early earth environments, not bad progress for trying to reproduce something that could have occurred only once in a hundred thousand years.
- cococooky, on 12/28/2007, -1/+5"since there can only be 1 truth they must be seeking the same thing so if there's any conflict something must not be fully understood." According to most Christians the Bible is infallible, so by "not understood" are you referring to the scientists, or conceding there are possibly flaws in your chosen faith?
- Salesti, on 12/28/2007, -3/+7You're right, and it didn't come across as an attack. It was a actually a gargantuan alignment of heavenly bodies, as I understand it (some present-day wise guys tracked down those ancient alignments) , and the Bible doesn't say it was only three wise guys -- there might well have been a whole caravan full of them, which would make more sense considering how far they had to travel.
I expect that -- one way or the other, ALL the pieces will eventually fall into place, no matter how ignored or argued the process is!
- Neiby, on 12/28/2007, -6/+10It is completely illogical to think the bible is the word of god. Unbiased historical study proves otherwise. Here is just a small sample od reading material to get your minds moving:
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/jhcjp.htm
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/ozjesus.html
http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/didjesusexist.html
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bibl ...
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morg ...
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/chri ... - blaze03, on 12/28/2007, -2/+6Critical thinking is the domain of science, not religion. Picking and choosing evidence to fit your beliefs is religion. Re-evaluating your beliefs based on the evidence is science.
Visual aid: http://stupidevilbastard.com/Images2/sciencevsfait ... -
Show 51 - 100 of 296 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 