Belief versus knowledge

[Audie]

You seem to view Eskimo (a questionable term) with curious condescension.

Oh? In what way questionable other than your questioning it?
What should they call themselves or be called?

While it is so that our friends of the frozen north are all well acquainted
with the fish hook, as well as the steel needle, they are also good with
the Grocery Store, the GPS, Facebook, snowmobile, xbox, and divers o
ther aspects of the modern world. Whether or not that is the case
is hardly the point of what he with the chicken icon had in mjnd.

Seeking out / mfg "pc" issues and finding a weakness in an analogy
is, like so pointless (and annoying) dont you think so ('hopper")?

 

[Skwim]

By the way...

Ezekiel 1:27
"And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about"

Amber is where we get the word Electron.

Ezekiel was seeing Electrons as 'Eyes round about'.

God is teaching electromagnetism to us in a way that can be understood by anyone at any time in any language. Quite an accomplishment!

Wellllll, not really.

electron (n.)
coined 1891 by Irish physicist George J. Stoney (1826-1911) from electric + -on, as in ion (q.v.). Electron microscope (1932) translates German Elektronenmikroskop.
source

electric (adj.)
1640s, first used in English by physician Sir Thomas Browne (1605-1682), apparently coined as Modern Latin electricus (literally "resembling amber") by English physicist William Gilbert (1540-1603) in treatise "De Magnete" (1600), from Latin electrum "amber," from Greek elektron "amber" (Homer, Hesiod, Herodotus), also "pale gold" (a compound of 1 part silver to 4 of gold); which is of unknown origin.

ion (n.)
1834, introduced by English physicist and chemist Michael Faraday (suggested by the Rev. William Whewell, English polymath), coined from Greek ion, neuter present participle of ienai "go," from PIE root *ei- "to go." So called because ions move toward the electrode of opposite charge.

.​

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh? In what way questionable other than your questioning it?
What should they call themselves or be called?

Inuit or Inuktitut.

 

[Audie]

Inuit or Inuktitut.

Nope.

Try again?

 

[shunyadragon]

Nope.

Try again?

Inuit or Inuktitut.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Then you forego a piece of life.

So I think it’s best to take a worst case scenario approach:-
If God exists he probably doesn’t need any help from us,
Whereas, if God doesn’t exist and the cross in the sky was put there by aliens,
Then maybe they could do with some help solving all human/alien problems,
Eg., diseases, immortality, whatever.
So humanity puts all their resources into science,
And with the aliens we’ll have given it our best shot.
It probably is wise to consider God in all this,
Just in case he’s out there.
He may even lend a hand.

So I guess I’d back the loser of the two horse race!

 

[Audie]

Inuit or Inuktitut.

Droll!
A bit slow, learning.

But absolutely terrif example of belief v knowledge!

Are you blonde, btw?

If I call you, "Hey hey Swede!",
no prob?

Anyway- Alaskan Eskimos routinely call themselves Eskimos.
Yu'piks are not Inuits. There are also Cu'piks who are Eskimos.

What should we call Japanese and Germans? It surely is no
put down to say "Japanese."

One should avoid imposing western lib notions of what is pc
on those of different backgrounds, no? Cultural imperialism and
all that rot. .

Some of them to pick that stuff up along with western romanticism
about their sacred bond with nature, and parrot it back, esp when they
want to go poaching.

https://www.uaf.edu/anlc/resources/inuit-eskimo/

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

So I think it’s best to take a worst case scenario approach:-
If God exists he probably doesn’t need any help from us,
Whereas, if God doesn’t exist and the cross in the sky was put there by aliens,
Then maybe they could do with some help solving all human/alien problems,
Eg., diseases, immortality, whatever.
So humanity puts all their resources into science,
And with the aliens we’ll have given it our best shot.
It probably is wise to consider God in all this,
Just in case he’s out there.
He may even lend a hand.

So I guess I’d back the loser of the two horse race!

And you never know, we might even win!
Especially if there was only one horse in the race all along.

 

[Audie]

So I think it’s best to take a worst case scenario approach:-
If God exists he probably doesn’t need any help from us,
Whereas, if God doesn’t exist and the cross in the sky was put there by aliens,
Then maybe they could do with some help solving all human/alien problems,
Eg., diseases, immortality, whatever.
So humanity puts all their resources into science,
And with the aliens we’ll have given it our best shot.
It probably is wise to consider God in all this,
Just in case he’s out there.
He may even lend a hand.

So I guess I’d back the loser of the two horse race!

Ok, here is a lab. Goggles, gloves and coat available.

Electron microscope, gss chromatography equip, rotovaps,
anything you like.

How, specifically, do you propse to consider god?

 

[Katzpur]

Neither was I.

But you rated my post as "funny."

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Ok, here is a lab. Goggles, gloves and coat available.

Electron microscope, gss chromatography equip, rotovaps,
anything you like.

How, specifically, do you propse to consider god?

Two trillion years later...............
Two riders were approaching,
And the wind began to howl.

God turns around and says.....
“Did you enjoy that”?
All the creatures replied.....
“Let’s play it again”.
So there was a Big Bang.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

You seem to view Eskimo (a questionable term) with curious condescension.

They also seem to view the idea of truth with curious condescension.

I assume you're talking about the Bible, but we could also apply this to the Tao te Ching, the Vedas, or the Tripitaka.

As the Tao te Ching explains in one of its more odd verses, people tend to talk about virtues the most when such things are in need. In other words, a holy book isn't just something someone made on the spot (if it is, there are usually hints of narcissism or attention seeking behavior coupled with wild claims), but rather a result of the era.

Let's start with the Tao te Ching.

The book was written by a quasi-mythical character (he was supposedly born old, and we can't get a fix on who exactly he was, some people say it was several authors but the work is too coherent for that) named Laozi from apparently worked as an archivist until at around 80, the fact that China was at a constant state of unrest and disorder made him leave in frustration. Supposedly, the border guard stopped him and had him write his teachings so they wouldn't be lost to time.

The Vedas were kinda just writings of all the people of that area. They developed as a way to understand life in an area torn by constant upheaval. As in, why do we live, what is the point of all of this? They concluded that human beings can be divided into types and that history is largely cyclical.

The Tripitaka wasn't exactly written by Buddha, but probably his followers. They were basically his teachings written down. The Buddha was a man kept in a sheltered environment for most of his life (he was a prince), who became freaked out when he saw the reality of death and suffering, and spent the rest of his life making sense of it. I strongly recommend watching Osamu Tezuka's Buddha series because this is a beautiful work.

The Torah developed as a part of a people who had lived in a time that was very rough, yet managed to live by following a set of laws and trusting in God. The New Testament was an account of a prophet, who proposed reforms of Judaism and was accepted as Messiah.

None of these stories is divorced from history. None are all that fantastic once you understand that miracles are simply literary devices that show the power of God through symbolism and analogy.

Belief is not incompatible with knowledge. For instance, modern science understands how a sea can part,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ion-for-the-parting-of-the-red-sea-in-exodus/

how the feeding of the 5000 took place (hint: it's psychology),

https://theupsidedownworld.com/2012/09/25/how-did-jesus-feed-5000-people-does-it-matter/

and even changing water into wine (I'm the author here).

https://www.quora.com/Can-water-turn-into-wine/answer/Samantha-Rinne

Knowledge doesn't inhibit belief, but rather gives it a foundation.

 

[Audie]

Two trillion years later...............
Two riders were approaching,
And the wind began to howl.

God turns around and says.....
“Did you enjoy that”?
All the creatures replied.....
“Let’s do it again”.
So there was a Big Bang.

Two trillion years later...............
Two riders were approaching,
And the wind began to howl.

God turns around and says.....
“Did you enjoy that”?
All the creatures replied.....
“Let’s play it again”.
So there was a Big Bang.

Derivative

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Derivative

At the moment I don’t know how I propose to consider God, if he exists, in the scheme of things.
That’s why i’m Here on this forum.
I’m all ears.
Give me an example of what you’re asking....it might help.

 

[Audie]

At the moment I don’t know how I propose to consider God, if he exists, in the scheme of things.
That’s why i’m Here on this forum.
I’m all ears.
Give me an example of what you’re asking....it might help.

In this you are not so all alone, nobody knows how to "consider
God".

No more than we know how to figure Chupacabre into
studies of fisheries science. Or Batboy geology.

It makes no sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In this you are not so all alone, nobody knows how to "consider
God".

No more than we know how to figure Chupacabre into
studies of fisheries science. Or Batboy geology.

It makes no sense.

Bat boy would be a natural at speleology.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You seem to view Eskimo (a questionable term) with curious condescension.

Oh? In what way questionable other than your questioning it?
What should they call themselves or be called?

Thanks for asking.

From Wikipedia:Eskimo

The two main peoples known as "Eskimo" are: (1) the Alaskan Iñupiat peoples, Greenlandic Inuit, and the mass-grouping Inuit peoples of Canada, and (2) the Yupik of eastern Siberia and Alaska. The Yupik comprise speakers of four distinct Yupik languages: one used in the Russian Far East and the others among people of Western Alaska, Southcentral Alaska and along the Gulf of Alaska coast. A third northern group, the Aleut, is closely related to these two. They share a relatively recent common ancestor, and a language group (Eskimo-Aleut).

The word "Eskimo" derives from phrases that Algonquin tribes used for their northern neighbors. The Inuit and Yupik peoples generally do not use it to refer to themselves, and the governments in Canada and Greenland have ceased using it in official documents.[2]

The entry then references ...

Maurice Waite (2013). Pocket Oxford English Dictionary. OUP Oxford. p. 305. ISBN 978-0-19-966615-7. "Some people regard the word Eskimo as offensive, and the peoples inhabiting the regions of northern Canada and parts of Greenland and Alaska prefer to call themselves Inuit"

 

[Audie]

They also seem to view the idea of truth with curious condescension.

I assume you're talking about the Bible, but we could also apply this to the Tao te Ching, the Vedas, or the Tripitaka.

As the Tao te Ching explains in one of its more odd verses, people tend to talk about virtues the most when such things are in need. In other words, a holy book isn't just something someone made on the spot (if it is, there are usually hints of narcissism or attention seeking behavior coupled with wild claims), but rather a result of the era.

Let's start with the Tao te Ching.

The book was written by a quasi-mythical character (he was supposedly born old, and we can't get a fix on who exactly he was, some people say it was several authors but the work is too coherent for that) named Laozi from apparently worked as an archivist until at around 80, the fact that China was at a constant state of unrest and disorder made him leave in frustration. Supposedly, the border guard stopped him and had him write his teachings so they wouldn't be lost to time.

The Vedas were kinda just writings of all the people of that area. They developed as a way to understand life in an area torn by constant upheaval. As in, why do we live, what is the point of all of this? They concluded that human beings can be divided into types and that history is largely cyclical.

The Tripitaka wasn't exactly written by Buddha, but probably his followers. They were basically his teachings written down. The Buddha was a man kept in a sheltered environment for most of his life (he was a prince), who became freaked out when he saw the reality of death and suffering, and spent the rest of his life making sense of it. I strongly recommend watching Osamu Tezuka's Buddha series because this is a beautiful work.

The Torah developed as a part of a people who had lived in a time that was very rough, yet managed to live by following a set of laws and trusting in God. The New Testament was an account of a prophet, who proposed reforms of Judaism and was accepted as Messiah.

None of these stories is divorced from history. None are all that fantastic once you understand that miracles are simply literary devices that show the power of God through symbolism and analogy.

Belief is not incompatible with knowledge. For instance, modern science understands how a sea can part,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ion-for-the-parting-of-the-red-sea-in-exodus/

how the feeding of the 5000 took place (hint: it's psychology),

https://theupsidedownworld.com/2012/09/25/how-did-jesus-feed-5000-people-does-it-matter/

and even changing water into wine (I'm the author here).

https://www.quora.com/Can-water-turn-into-wine/answer/Samantha-Rinne

Knowledge doesn't inhibit belief, but rather gives it a foundation.

But never frees you from superstition?

 

[Audie]

Thanks for asking.

From Wikipedia:Eskimo

​

The entry then references ...

​

I see you read / quoted just enough to get it wrong.

 

[ecco]

The problem is alternative beliefs stopping one belief.
For example consider the following beliefs....
1. A cross in the sky by God
2. A cross in the sky by some advanced alien race
How does one choose one over the other?
It’s a bit like popping into a betting office and placing a bet on a two horse race.
In the back of my mind there’s the possibility I’ll loose.
So I don’t go into betting offices.

Let's look at the odds based on knowledge...

Aliens

• We know, based on probabilities, that we are not the only "advanced" entities in the universe.
• We know that an "alien" civilization capable of getting from another star system to ours would be capable of producing a large cross in the sky.

Gods

• We know mankind's imaginings has produced thousands of gods over Centuries.
• We know that the believers in these thousands of gods all "know" that their creation is the only real, actual, factual god.

Hmmm. If I see a big cross in the sky, I'll put my money on aliens. But first I'd rule out synchronized drones.