Scientific thinking and common sense

[Eloi]

I have noticed that sometimes people with a scientific mind, people who have studied a lot and know a lot of information about different sciences, do not notice simple things that do not escape the attention of ordinary people, even if they have studied less or almost nothing.

For example, the fact that the animals that evolutionists call "lower" in the evolutionary scale still live alongside humans, and that others supposedly fitter, because they are located in a higher position in the evolutionary line of man, no longer exist.

Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes? https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101985017

To what extent do you think the "wisdom" of this system of things can cloud a person's mind?

[Jose Fly]

Whatever you were "immersed in" it was unhelpful to you it seems.

Based on what?

[Inquirer]

Whatever you were "immersed in" it was unhelpful to you it seems.

Based on what?

What do you mean "based on what"? On what you just said in your preceding post of course!

[Jose Fly]

What do you mean "based on what"? On what you just said in your preceding post of course!

What specifically did I post that led you to suggest that "whatever was 'immersed in' was unhelpful to [me]"?

[Clownboat]

So is it your argument that everyone who isn't a Christian is only that way because they haven't "put in the work, the study, the effort, and research" and therefore are unfamiliar with the Bible?

No, those are your words not mine.

These are in fact your words, not Jose's: "No, it just looks that way to someone completely unfamiliar with it."
Jose Fly's summation sure seems accurate.

I was explaining to Joey that the Bible appearing to him to be "nonsensical" or "badly written" is because he perhaps doesn't understand it.

That's just a defense mechanism kicking in. You can't have Joey understanding the Bible, yet rejecting it. Therefore, you are forced to invent a scenario where he must not understand it.

Keep in mind, the Bible isn't as hard to understand for everyone as it seems to be for yourself.

In a nutshell, it tells the story of a vengeful god that enacts ineffective punishments.
Adam and Eve. Created as perfect, yet punished with being kicked out of the garden and all women going forward in time to suffer during childbirth. What did these punishments accomplish?
Noah. Kills almost all life on the planet, even animals. What did all this killing accomplish?
Sacrifices his son to himself. What did that accomplish?

The story as told is not hard to understand.

[JoeyKnothead]

The bible's it the mother of all "nonsensical, poorly argued, and badly written".

No, it just looks that way to someone completely unfamiliar with it, no different to if you were to encounter this for example:

It don't take much study to realize dead folks don't hop up and fetch on of to the farmer's market.

Unless one puts in the work, the study, the effort and research one will not be able to make sense of it and could easily make the error of describing this as "nonsensical" and "badly written", do you see what I mean?

When you can find it within yourself to answer the questions I put to you, I'll be happy to answer those you put to me.

My point remains - if one wants take the bible seriously, that don't mean everyone hasta.

That's some "point" Joey, congratulations.

Thanks.

Even though it sounds obvious, some folks need to hear it. And study on it.

[Inquirer]

What do you mean "based on what"? On what you just said in your preceding post of course!

What specifically did I post that led you to suggest that "whatever was 'immersed in' was unhelpful to [me]"?

What do you say to folks like me who have read the Bible and grew up immersed in Christianity literally from one week old, but also find the general story of the Bible to be nonsensical?

[Jose Fly]

What do you mean "based on what"? On what you just said in your preceding post of course!

What specifically did I post that led you to suggest that "whatever was 'immersed in' was unhelpful to [me]"?

What do you say to folks like me who have read the Bible and grew up immersed in Christianity literally from one week old, but also find the general story of the Bible to be nonsensical?

Why would what I said lead you to suggest that my experiences with Christianity and the Bible weren't helpful? Is it merely because I'm not a Christian?

IOW, is your reasoning simply "You are not a Christian, therefore your Christian upbringing couldn't have been helpful"?

[Inquirer]

So is it your argument that everyone who isn't a Christian is only that way because they haven't "put in the work, the study, the effort, and research" and therefore are unfamiliar with the Bible?

No, those are your words not mine.

These are in fact your words, not Jose's: "No, it just looks that way to someone completely unfamiliar with it."
Jose Fly's summation sure seems accurate.

That's a matter of opinion, my words are not his words go and compare them word for word.

I was explaining to Joey that the Bible appearing to him to be "nonsensical" or "badly written" is because he perhaps doesn't understand it.

That's just a defense mechanism kicking in. You can't have Joey understanding the Bible, yet rejecting it. Therefore, you are forced to invent a scenario where he must not understand it.

No, its the truth, if he understood it would not seem nonsensical.

Keep in mind, the Bible isn't as hard to understand for everyone as it seems to be for yourself.

Tell that to Joey then, he claims its nonsensical now you claim otherwise.

In a nutshell, it tells the story of a vengeful god that enacts ineffective punishments.
Adam and Eve. Created as perfect, yet punished with being kicked out of the garden and all women going forward in time to suffer during childbirth. What did these punishments accomplish?
Noah. Kills almost all life on the planet, even animals. What did all this killing accomplish?
Sacrifices his son to himself. What did that accomplish?

The story as told is not hard to understand.

Actually its impossible for humans to understand without God's help.

[Clownboat]

Whatever you were "immersed in" it was unhelpful to you it seems.

Based on what?

Based on a defence mechanism that allows a person to maintain a belief by convincing oneself that whatever you were "immersed in" it had to be unhelpful.

The evidence for this is that Inquirer would not know how Jose was immersed, but however he was immersed, it just had to be unhelpful.
Readers, how could anyone have this kind of knowledge about Jose? They can't, yet I submit that the belief is going to be maintained anyway as it justifies the end goal.

Joey can't understand the Bible and Jose was immersed in unhelpful ways. Sure seems like a defense mechanism at play to me.

[Inquirer]

What do you mean "based on what"? On what you just said in your preceding post of course!

What specifically did I post that led you to suggest that "whatever was 'immersed in' was unhelpful to [me]"?

What do you say to folks like me who have read the Bible and grew up immersed in Christianity literally from one week old, but also find the general story of the Bible to be nonsensical?

Why would what I said lead you to suggest that my experiences with Christianity and the Bible weren't helpful? Is it merely because I'm not a Christian?

IOW, is your reasoning simply "You are not a Christian, therefore your Christian upbringing couldn't have been helpful"?

Understanding comes from God, not from living in a "Christian" family or community.