07 Oct 19
@jonathan004 saidWhich “words of God” are you referring to?
Ofcourse if you do not know the words of God you will be called foolish.
08 Oct 19
@thinkofone saidWhile dive could have put the question more politely, I have to agree with him. It's not entirely clear to me what your point here is. Are you saying that the people who think that the moon landings are a fake are deluded and therefore, although believing in some of the wackier interpretations of the Bible is delusional, because some people believe that the moon landings are fake without suffering any adverse effects it must also be ok to believe in bizarre interpretations of the Bible? Or are you saying something else?
You don't give them enough credit.
It works the other way as well. For example, the moon landing was fake.
08 Oct 19
@kellyjay saidI need to think about this, but I'll make a comment about your first paragraph. I always find it a little odd when scientists say that. The scientists, one would think, believe the evolutionary narrative of the origin of species. In that narrative we've spent the last three and a half to four billion years evolving. To do that we and all our ancestors needed to be able to avoid being eaten for long enough to reproduce. In other words we have to be able to understand the world well enough to live in it. Our evolutionary niche is tool use, specifically complex tool use. Our brains are adapted to understanding the world. So it's not that much of a surprise that we can understand the world we live in.
One of the things I have read some scientists marvel over was that the universe makes sense to us. We could look at it and figure things out, making science possible.
The point that even though life as we know it is set up here with high precision forces in both micro and macro parts of the universe are here; nonetheless, it could be, "...perfectly set up for life-as-we- ...[text shortened]... osmos, the forces that regulate the microscopic world it is all set up for life that speaks volumes.
I realise you believe the creation narrative and not the evolutionary one, but it is the scientists beliefs that are relevant here.
08 Oct 19
@deepthought saidThere is a book I read recently that goes somewhat into this (i.e. evolutionary psychology) which has the rather provocative title "Why Buddhism is True." (In fact the book only claims that the secular aspects of Buddhism are true.)
I need to think about this, but I'll make a comment about your first paragraph. I always find it a little odd when scientists say that. The scientists, one would think, believe the evolutionary narrative of the origin of species. In that narrative we've spent the last three and a half to four billion years evolving. To do that we and all our ancestors needed to be abl ...[text shortened]... ion narrative and not the evolutionary one, but it is the scientists beliefs that are relevant here.
Here's a review of the book:
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/09/26/553712812/why-why-buddhism-is-true-is-true
There is much talk about meditation, and also much talk about how our senses are not so much geared to portray the universe accurately to us, but rather to perceive it in a manner that is conducive to our survival and procreation. Thus, humans generally operate under a considerable cloak of delusion, and while these evolutionarily adaptive delusions were beneficial back in the caveman days, in modern times they can be cause for much undue suffering (what Buddhists call dukkha).
08 Oct 19
@deepthought saidMar 08, 2015 · John Lennox, professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford, writes that according to atheism, "the mind that does science … is the end product of a mindless unguided process. Now, if you knew your computer was the product of a mindless unguided process, you wouldn’t trust it.
I need to think about this, but I'll make a comment about your first paragraph. I always find it a little odd when scientists say that. The scientists, one would think, believe the evolutionary narrative of the origin of species. In that narrative we've spent the last three and a half to four billion years evolving. To do that we and all our ancestors needed to be abl ...[text shortened]... ion narrative and not the evolutionary one, but it is the scientists beliefs that are relevant here.
I'm not sure why you think only scientist beliefs are relevant here. If creation is true many of them as wrong as wrong can be.
08 Oct 19
@kellyjay saidBecause I was commenting on why scientists are surprised that the world should be understandable to them. It is their beliefs that are relevant to this.
Mar 08, 2015 · John Lennox, professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford, writes that according to atheism, "the mind that does science … is the end product of a mindless unguided process. Now, if you knew your computer was the product of a mindless unguided process, you wouldn’t trust it.
I'm not sure why you think only scientist beliefs are relevant here. If creation is true many of them as wrong as wrong can be.
08 Oct 19
@soothfast saidThanks for the link, I'll look at it tomorrow. One of the limitations of my point which I realised while typing it was that while we might understand the outside world well, it doesn't really help us with things like the problem of consciousness. We don't have much experience making tools there.
There is a book I read recently that goes somewhat into this (i.e. evolutionary psychology) which has the rather provocative title "Why Buddhism is True." (In fact the book only claims that the secular aspects of Buddhism are true.)
Here's a review of the book:
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/09/26/553712812/why-why-buddhism-is-true-is-true
There is mu ...[text shortened]... ays, in modern times they can be cause for much undue suffering (what Buddhists call dukkha).
@deepthought saidWhile dive could have put the question more politely, I have to agree with him.
While dive could have put the question more politely, I have to agree with him. It's not entirely clear to me what your point here is. Are you saying that the people who think that the moon landings are a fake are deluded and therefore, although believing in some of the wackier interpretations of the Bible is delusional, because some people believe that the moon landing ...[text shortened]... st also be ok to believe in bizarre interpretations of the Bible? Or are you saying something else?
Based on what you've written here, it doesn't seem like you agree with much at all of what DG wrote.
Well, at least you didn't underhandedly edit out a portion of my post in an attempt to make it seem to say something it doesn't, so that you could ask, "Is this a claim about yourself or about people in this forum?" - like DG did.
Are you saying that the people who think that the moon landings are a fake are deluded and therefore, although believing in some of the wackier interpretations of the Bible is delusional, because some people believe that the moon landings are fake without suffering any adverse effects it must also be ok to believe in bizarre interpretations of the Bible?
How'd you manage to get all that out of what I wrote?
Put what I wrote in context of what C4 wrote. Put a little deep thought into it.
Perhaps the humor was too subtle for you?
.
08 Oct 19
@thinkofone said
While dive could have put the question more politely, I have to agree with him.
Based on what you've written here, it doesn't seem like you agree with much at all of what DG wrote.
Well, at least you didn't underhandedly edit out a portion of my post in an attempt to make it seem to say something it doesn't, so that you could ask, "Is this a claim about your ...[text shortened]... hat C4 wrote. Put a little deep thought into it.
Perhaps the humor was too subtle for you?
.
@caissad4 saidcaissa must be talking about the Christians who post here, she cannot be referring to atheists since they do not believe in the mythology.
This forum is chock full of self deluded people .
Creation fairy tales , flood fairy tales , and talking donkeys and snakes are real to them .
You don't give them enough credit.Your first sentence ought to be referring to the same Christians who believe in the literal truth of the Book of Genesis. If it is not then you needed to use a noun and not a pronoun.
It works the other way as well. For example, the moon landing was fake.
"It works the other way as well."
Well, in the context of Caissa's post you have to be referring to atheists here.
"For example, the moon landing was fake."
This is a conspiracy theory which cuts across religious beliefs, I doubt there is much of a correlation between religious belief and belief in conspiracy theories (although it would be interesting if they were anti-correlated). So it is unclear what you are saying. Any "humour" is lost when you have to explain the "joke".
08 Oct 19
@deepthought saidFair enough!
Because I was commenting on why scientists are surprised that the world should be understandable to them. It is their beliefs that are relevant to this.
08 Oct 19
@deepthought saidAny "humour" is lost when you have to explain the "joke".@caissad4 saidcaissa must be talking about the Christians who post here, she cannot be referring to atheists since they do not believe in the mythology.
This forum is chock full of self deluded people .
Creation fairy tales , flood fairy tales , and talking donkeys and snakes are real to them .
[quote]You don't give them enough credit.
It works the ot ...[text shortened]... ). So it is unclear what you are saying. Any "humour" is lost when you have to explain the "joke".
Exactly.
caissa must be talking about the Christians who post here
Exactly.
Well, in the context of Caissa's post you have to be referring to atheists here.
Have to?
"Creation fairy tales , flood fairy tales , and talking donkeys and snakes are real to them .
vs
"For example, the moon landing was fake."
08 Oct 19
@thinkofone saidDo you believe that the moon landings were faked. If so there's a thread I started over in Science you might want to have a look at.
Any "humour" is lost when you have to explain the "joke".
Exactly.
caissa must be talking about the Christians who post here
Exactly.
Well, in the context of Caissa's post you have to be referring to atheists here.
Have to?
"Creation fairy tales , flood fairy tales , and talking donkeys and snakes are real to them .
vs
"For example, the moon landing was fake."
@deepthought saidWhy would I believe that?
Do you believe that the moon landings were faked. If so there's a thread I started over in Science you might want to have a look at.
You seem to have lost the thread.
Or was this just a way to change the subject as a way to avoid admitting you made an unwarranted assumption?