Are science and religion converging?

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

By the way, why do you take pleasure in such caustic phrases as "laughably absurd" when a simple "wrong" would do just as well.
And who says reliability of source material is off limits?

I neither said that reliability of sources were off-limits, nor was i caustic. I'd say here that caustic is in the eye of the reader. Are you so defensive about not having what you've written taken to task? Absent any knowledge of the article in question, you were simply in no position to pass any kind of judgment on the topic. As for "in those days," you won't find a more comprehensive narrative, for example, of the conquest of Tenochtitlan in 1519-1522 than that written by Bernal Diaz in the late 1570's, when he was an old man living on his hacienda in Nicaragua. He was an eye-witness, and a confidant of Cortez. He is not contradicted by the Toltec historicans, writing a generation after the conquest, but well before he wrote; they relied upon the testimony of their parents and grandparents. The data collected by anybody at any time is subject to a revision of the assessment which was made at the time; people in this century can be just as disingenuous, or willfully blind to that which does not coincide with the thesis they wish to support. When the data was collected does not matter--just the quality of it. I don't recall it well enough to make a judgment, and i thought it absurd for you to have done so, never having seen the material. And i laughed aloud when i read what you'd written--hence, laughably absurd.

0 Replies

truth
I find your response to be grotesquely aggressive and obnoxiously perverse as well as absurdly laughable. Laughing

Wow, that DID feel good. Maybe you've got something going there, Set. Everyone watch out. I'm going to adopt Setanta's interaction style. It feels great. I recommend it to all of you. Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Mjnd the sticks, kids ... don't want anybody to get hurt ... and that's the truth.

0 Replies

If you wish to take offense where none is offered, JLN, you just help yourself. I'd suggest you are making a holy of holies of your opinion, and any contradiction thereof is taken by you in high dudgeon. I note that you have not responded to the substance of my last post, but rather, made allegations about the tone of it. That might arise from you having been incorrect in your first criticism, and having no valid reply now.

0 Replies

<sigh>

FromTHE TERMS Of SERVICE

Quote:

B.1) Be courteous. You agree that you will not threaten or verbally abuse other members, use defamatory language, or deliberately disrupt topics with repetitive messages, meaningless messages or "spam." Spammers will be removed from the service, and their accounts terminated.
2) Use respectful language. You agree not to use language that abuses or discriminates on the basis of race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual preference, age, region, disability, etc. Hate speech of any kind is grounds for immediate and permanent removal from the service.
3) Use appropriate language. While open exchanges, even about adult-oriented issues, are encouraged, members are asked to consider the different ages and sensitivities of the entire community while participating in the Able2know service. If necessary, inappropriate language will be deleted or edited, or a topic containing said inappropriate language will be marked as such (e. g. Warning: contains adult language).
4) Vulgar speech is not tolerated. Vulgarisms will be deleted or edited, and may result in a warning or eventual removal from the site.
5) Lively debate is accepted, and even encouraged, but personal attacks are not. Active topics and heated debate are welcome in the Able2know service. However, personal attacks are a direct violation of this Agreement and are grounds for immediate and permanent removal from the service.[/color]

[/size]

0 Replies

I don't know to whom that is directed, however, if anyone construes what i've written as personal comments--that is certainly not the intent, and the remarks i've made about the value JLN may put on his/her own opinion were speculative.

At another site which i frequent, the members are in the habit, when necessary, of reminding one another that the protocol is to attack the idea, and not the person. That is what i've done here. JLN made a categoric statement that all societies have a conception of a deity. I objected, referring to something i'd read many years ago, and hedged that all about with qualification. JLN responded with another categoric statement about the quality of the source, and a remark upon the validity of data collection "in those days." I said that i found that laughably absurd--not that i found JLN to be such, but what JLN had written. I've attempted throughout to address the points at issue specifically, and have made no personal remarks. I have speculated on JLN's ability to handle criticism, specifically because she or he has so quickly taken offense to the criticism of what was written.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Granted. But tomorrow, when cooler heads prevail, it will still be true that Eurocentric History has lied more often than has been generally discussed in the open.

Snood, what makes you think that the new rulers will have "cooler heads?" I don't think you can trust politicians, but archaeologists are trustworthy. At least when they get somthing wrong the scientific community corrects it. Different cultures had varying concepts of what we would relate as "god." Many cultures had somthing that filled the space of the ultimate alpha male, somthing unseen but that was more powerful than any member of their social group. Often, this power was responsible for the unexplainable bad things that happened (i.e. volcanoes, earthquakes, thunder. Emperors used to have to change every time there was a solar eclipse because it was viewed as diapproval from the g-ds.) Sometimes they were associated with good things or wanting things like fertility idols/godesses which were also associated with growth in the land and prosperity. Egyptian slaves believed that if they were good workers, they would go to the "Happy field of food" when they died. Some of these concepts of g-d are very different than the concepts of g-d held by Christians, muslims, etc. but they also bear many similarities. I would be hard pressed to say there was never a civilization without some concept of g-d, but then it all depends on how you define g-d, doesn't it?

0 Replies

Thanks, JL.

0 Replies

truth
Setanta, friends (again)? My "attack" was merely an attempt to hold a mirror up to you so that you can see how your comments ("laughably absurd") came off to me. I am relieved to hear from you that you were not attempting to ridicule ME, only my ideas. The best way for relationships to endure is for no "winner" in an argument to never leave the "loser" without feelings of dignity (at least that's what Dr. Phil says). Do you agree?
I'm a he; what are you?

0 Replies

I'm a guy with a picture of a little doggie girl, so it don't matter none how you characterize me . . .

0 Replies

truth
Setanta, I didn't characterize you, I asked you to characterize yourself. Did you, in your reference to the little doggie girl (doll)? Fine. Remember what I told you some time back about the high quality of your intellectual contributions? I meant it, and I repeat it here.

0 Replies

Are science and religion converging?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know