To atheists: a museum analogy regarding Creationism

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, its humble when said to me.

If someone said "I suggest you learn more of The Tao" -- my attitude in response is OK, which chapter(s) please?

See, I expect to always learn. I'm always hoping to learn.

Here you go: Introduction to the Tao (the Tao doesn't have chapters, it's a way of life or an attitude to life)

 

[Halbhh]

It does have a condescending tone.

Thanks. Thats helpful to know!

 

[Halbhh]

Here you go: Introduction to the Tao (the Tao doesn't have chapters, it's a way of life or an attitude to life)

I love The Tao. I have 3 translations. One of my favorite chapters (or use you own word here) is #38.

Which are you thinking we need to reread for gain? Or instead which translation do you like most?

I like Blakney.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I love The Tao. I have 3 translations. One of my favorite chapters (or use you own word here) is #38.

The Tao Te Ching is a fascinating book, and a useful refresher - but the Tao that can be written is not the true Tao

Which are you thinking we need to reread for gain? Or instead which translation do you like most?

I like Blakney.

I don't really have a favourite - Merel is modern, Blakney is rather specific, Legge is old-style & more ambiguous. I haven't read Stephen Mitchell's translation or Ursula Le Guin's, and others, but I find it helps to read different translations together, because each is so different it allows you to leave the words behind and find your own understanding. Fortunately, there are sites now that make this easy - e.g. A Man of Highest Virtue.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You ought to take that as a suggestion about a possibility to investigate. Don't just be prideful.

Please don't act as if I don't know anything about abrahamic religions and what they have to say.

For example, check out the wording of versions of the golden rule, a repeating idea in all cultures (just as any truth should be).... Are some versions rather better than other versions? Just one of a dozen questions to consider along the way, to me. I'm more interested in the end in finding the wisest, in order to begin to test their other ideas that are unfamiliar.

"Possibly the earliest affirmation of the maxim of reciprocity, reflecting the ancient Egyptian goddess Ma'at, appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BC): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do."[12][13] This proverb embodies the do ut des principle.[14] A Late Period (c. 664–323 BC) papyrus contains an early negative affirmation of the Golden Rule: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another." -- Wiki

Now, these, though interesting, and a lot better than nothing, aren't the same to me as this --

"So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you"

These 3 are not the same, and would lead to different choices in some situations.

For example "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another." would not cause a certain Samaritan to do this:

25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27He answered, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’c ; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’d ”

28“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35The next day he took out two denariie and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

You're just not getting it, are you.

Let's just go ahead and say, for the sake of argument, that everything that is verifiable in the bible turns out to be correct. It's not, off course, but let's assume.

That doesn't mean that the unverifiable things are also correct.

If I list you 10 things, 9 of them turn out true, does that mean that 10 is true also? Answer: no, it does not.

Just like Newton's work in physics doesn't provide any extra support for his work in alchemy.

 

[Halbhh]

Please don't act as if I don't know anything about abrahamic religions and what they have to say.



You're just not getting it, are you.

Let's just go ahead and say, for the sake of argument, that everything that is verifiable in the bible turns out to be correct. It's not, off course, but let's assume.

That doesn't mean that the unverifiable things are also correct.

If I list you 10 things, 9 of them turn out true, does that mean that 10 is true also? Answer: no, it does not.

Just like Newton's work in physics doesn't provide any extra support for his work in alchemy.

:=) Of course I tested every last thing I could. I also critically examined what I could not test, and didn't expect all the wordings in the accounts called the gospels would be accurate even to what He said. (I didn't yet at that time know the gospel of Mark was written down only about 35 years after His time here, so that some older living eye witnesses would still be alive when Mark was written down). I'm a 'doubting Thomas' type. That's why I had to finally pray to God a prayer "Make a way from me to you." That's not a prayer of a 'I already know all about things we can't see' attitude, of course, since I'm the opposite of that attitude. :=) If you don't believe "love your enemy", but also are not the sort to presume a conclusion about what you haven't tested, if you're like me in that prove-it attitude, then test and see. Try out the love your neighbor, the forgive, the so in everything treat others as you want to be treated, and see for yourself. Find out if He can rescue you from the pathos deep down in the human condition that shows up everyday in the disregard of people for others, the hates, prejudices, all of it, and from the endless war. Don't rely on a 2nd hand view, I say. Test and find out directly, that's my motto.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

:=) Of course I tested every last thing I could. I also critically examined what I could not test, and didn't expect all the wordings in the accounts called the gospels would be accurate even to what He said. (I didn't yet at that time know the gospel of Mark was written down only about 35 years after His time here, so that some older living eye witnesses would still be alive when Mark was written down). I'm a 'doubting Thomas' type. That's why I had to finally pray to God a prayer "Make a way from me to you." That's not a prayer of a 'I already know all about things we can't see' attitude, of course, since I'm the opposite of that attitude. :=) If you don't believe "love your enemy", but also are not the sort to presume a conclusion about what you haven't tested, if you're like me in that prove-it attitude, then test and see. Try out the love your neighbor, the forgive, the so in everything treat others as you want to be treated, and see for yourself. Find out if He can rescue you from the pathos deep down in the human condition that shows up everyday in the disregard of people for others, the hates, prejudices, all of it, and from the endless war. Don't rely on a 2nd hand view, I say. Test and find out directly, that's my motto.

It's like talking to a wall.

 

[Halbhh]

It's like talking to a wall.

You didn't see me claim my experiences are proof to you, because I'm logical and objective.

I tried to go past that, but I bet you'd like someone to acknowledge that you don't consider other people's experiences to be proof, or that a string of results doesn't guarantee further results, etc.

I just took that for granted, as an already agreed fact. To me it's merely logically correct. But I'm happy to spend more time on that stuff if you need.

A coin could come up heads 10 times in a row, but that wouldn't constitute prove that the 11th time would be heads, etc.

Is there more about that you'd like to talk about?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You didn't see me claim my experiences are proof to you, because I'm logical and objective.

I tried to go past that, but I bet you'd like someone to acknowledge that you don't consider other people's experiences to be proof, or that a string of results doesn't guarantee further results, etc.

I just took that for granted, as an already agreed fact. To me it's merely logically correct. But I'm happy to spend more time on that stuff if you need.

A coin could come up heads 10 times in a row, but that wouldn't constitute prove that the 11th time would be heads, etc.

Is there more about that you'd like to talk about?

It's like you haven't read a word I wrote down.

My point was that your proposed "test", which you implied as being a test for christianity, isn't a test of christianity at all... as the idea's being tested predate christianity.

Nore do I need to test the proposed idea, either. My understanding of how to build a functional cooperative society, my moral compass, etc already include such ideas.

And I didn't require a bible or beliefs in any supernatural things, to include such ideas in my worldview.

 

[Halbhh]

It's like you haven't read a word I wrote down.

My point was that your proposed "test", which you implied as being a test for christianity, isn't a test of christianity at all... as the idea's being tested predate christianity.

Nore do I need to test the proposed idea, either. My understanding of how to build a functional cooperative society, my moral compass, etc already include such ideas.

And I didn't require a bible or beliefs in any supernatural things, to include such ideas in my worldview.

Would it help to reword what I said before this way? -- I don't think I can prove anything to you, and also I haven't given you a test of Christianity itself above (so far as I can remember) to try out.

But, I have tried to suggest you test things Jesus said to find out more than 1 or only 2 things.

I've suggested repeatedly (sorry!) that you test His teaching yourself directly.

Why?

Here's how I see it -- if you find a wise man said many true things, does it make you want to learn more that he said? For me, it totally does.

It's somewhat like whether someone would want to test Einstein's ideas say in 1917. Would we want to test and see?

I would.

If the general relativity prediction of light deflection by gravity works, then we may be curious to test more on general relativity.

Now, Einstein made few errors. Christ made zero, contrary to your suggestion above (yeah, I read every word you wrote to me each time, etc.), but there is no way to prove that to you at all, save you yourself testing stuff.
You may not want to. Because it's risky. And, I don't imagine I can prove it to you with only talking.
But, I'd want to learn more, myself. That's just how I am. After a read part of the Tao, and saw it got an important thing true in that part. Then I wanted to read all of the Tao, so I did, and carefully. But, what are you after?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But, I have tried to suggest you test things Jesus said to find out more than 1 or only 2 things.
I've suggested repeatedly (sorry!) that you test His teaching yourself directly.

It's not "his teaching" by any means. These ideas were already spread far and wide long before christianity existed.

The point exactly.

And as I have also stated before: it matters not if it is biblical or not.
The bible is a collection of a great many claims.
Let's arbitrarily say that 50% of it is testable.
Let's assume that ALL those tests are succesful.

That says NOTHING about the accuracy of the remaining 50%.

Here's how I see it -- if you find a wise man said many true things, does it make you want to learn more that he said? For me, it totally does.

Not necessarily.
Take Newton. Arguably one of the most intelligent people to ever walk the earth. He researched and wrote a great deal about alchemy. I don't have the slightest interest in reading about that.

It's somewhat like whether someone would want to test Einstein's ideas say in 1917. Would we want to test and see?

That's science. And when those ideas were tested and confirmed, it only said something about THOSE ideas and any and every other opinion or belief Einstein had, was and is completely irrelevant to that fact.

If the general relativity prediction of light deflection by gravity works, then we may be curious to test more on general relativity.

But not on whatever else Einstein had to say about anything whatsoever...

Now, Einstein made few errors. Christ made zero

That's just what you believe. By your own admission, if I remember correctly, a great deal from the bible, including Christ's alledged sayings and actions, are not verifiable at all.

And to be perfectly honest here.... There isn't even any conclusive evidence that the dude ever even really existed in the first place.........................

, contrary to your suggestion above (yeah, I read every word you wrote to me each time, etc.), but there is no way to prove that to you at all, save you yourself testing stuff.
You may not want to. Because it's risky.

What is risky? Is this moving into scare tactics? Are you going to try and "scare" me with things that are only really believed by the people in your specific religion?

And, I don't imagine I can prove it to you with only talking.
But, I'd want to learn more, myself. That's just how I am. After a read part of the Tao, and saw it got an important thing true in that part. Then I wanted to read all of the Tao, so I did, and carefully. But, what are you after?

I'm after the kind of answers that aren't dependend on people's subjective opinions or beliefs.

I'm also not a fan of engaging in fallacious logic like arguments from authority etc- which is what this seriously is starting to smell like.

 

[Halbhh]

It's not "his teaching" by any means. These ideas were already spread far and wide long before christianity existed.

The point exactly.

And as I have also stated before: it matters not if it is biblical or not.
The bible is a collection of a great many claims.
Let's arbitrarily say that 50% of it is testable.
Let's assume that ALL those tests are succesful.

That says NOTHING about the accuracy of the remaining 50%.





Not necessarily.
Take Newton. Arguably one of the most intelligent people to ever walk the earth. He researched and wrote a great deal about alchemy. I don't have the slightest interest in reading about that.



That's science. And when those ideas were tested and confirmed, it only said something about THOSE ideas and any and every other opinion or belief Einstein had, was and is completely irrelevant to that fact.



But not on whatever else Einstein had to say about anything whatsoever...



That's just what you believe. By your own admission, if I remember correctly, a great deal from the bible, including Christ's alledged sayings and actions, are not verifiable at all.

And to be perfectly honest here.... There isn't even any conclusive evidence that the dude ever even really existed in the first place.........................



What is risky? Is this moving into scare tactics? Are you going to try and "scare" me with things that are only really believed by the people in your specific religion?



I'm after the kind of answers that aren't dependend on people's subjective opinions or beliefs.

I'm also not a fan of engaging in fallacious logic like arguments from authority etc- which is what this seriously is starting to smell like.

If I had only taken stuff merely from authority, I would not have tested so many things and would not have been surprised by the results so much either. The "risk" I meant is the risk to have what I thought overturned by something different than I expected, and the unfamiliar ground that opens up, where I may have to dump ideas I liked because something better made them obsolete for me. That's the risk in seeking to find out if Christ was for real -- that risk He could be, and then what.... All I can tell you is that you gain more than you lose. This is all a lot like I'm telling you there is a healing spring in the mountains, and you have no proof, and there is no proof, except the effort of going there and dipping in. It's an extraordinary claim, and plenty of people dipped in other springs, not the one, and say that's all false claims, all the springs are just a spring, none are special, etc. And no one makes you find out, but your own interest or curiosity or drive to know. That's the only 'risk' part, that risk of it being real. (I won't be here at this site as much as usual, as some family members are in Houston, and it's intensifying there)

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also...

43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others?..."

The way to peace between people, only by forgiveness and love. Nothing else works for long.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

A friend of mine brought this up: saying that the universe and all the life on the Earth arose from randomness without a designer is like saying that when you go into an art museum and see all the paintings, you say "Oh, I don't think people made all these beautiful prices of artwork, I think paint cans just exploded to make them".

How would you respond to this?

I'd ask them to show me an example of a paint-can-explosion-universe.