• qyron
      link
      fedilink
      791 year ago

      To quote someone a lot wiser than myself:

      It’s a shame stupid people carry themselves through life full of certainty while the wise ones suffer a life of doubt.

      • @TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        61 year ago

        That’s a paraphrase of a famous Bertrand Russell quote. The original is as follows; “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.”

        There’s also the William Butler Yeats corollary; “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

    • @Sternout@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No, before the scientific method was invented, the religious consensus was that “All is known”.

      • @Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        And Aristotle was worshipped to the point where if people knew from personal experience that something he said was wrong, they’d assume their own experience was what was mistaken. And this despite him not having any connection to their religion at all.

        One example is that they used to think that objects could only have one force acting on it at a time. This could be the “natural force”, which is what makes objects fall when you drop them, or forces resulting from an action being performed on it. As a result, projectiles would travel straight in the direction they were thrown until the natural force took over, at which point they would fall vertically. Somehow this was still popularly believed (by academics at least) well after the catapult had been invented and used in sieges for centuries. It was believed by people who could throw things and observe how they moved with their own eyes.

      • Flying SquidM
        link
        fedilink
        281 year ago

        Please do show the spiritual texts which cover general and specific relativity.

        • no banana
          link
          fedilink
          32
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The Bible says something about the earth and how it is good and the filament of the sky and something. The Bible that is, at least that’s what I read on the internet. Many fine people on the internet, the best people, but not me, I haven’t said it, but the best people probably. The best people say the earth may be - and I’m not saying it is but they are saying it - they say that the earth may be flat and that doesn’t take much text to cover I have heard.

        • @bigfish@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          141 year ago

          If you squint a little, the 7 days of creation in Genesis are relativistic-ish. 1 day to separate light from darkness (photons at 1 microsecond after Big Bang), another to create the sky (opaque universe at 370k years), another to form dry land and create life (earth formed, 9.3 billion years, life at ~0.2by later), etc etc. Anyone with a physics degree able to say what fraction of light speed god must have been travelling to make this happen such that only days passed for them between these events?

          • flatearth
            link
            fedilink
            -191 year ago

            They are literal days.
            Our God is King of leading by example.
            Also, man was made from the dust of the earth. It was fitting that earth be created before man (also very important for prideful man).
            As He did, so we must do.
            It is repeated constantly that we have 6 days to work, the 7th to be set apart.
            Why?

            • @TurboDiesel@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              31 year ago

              Rabbinical scholars argue about the correct translation of Genesis to this day. So you saying they’re “literal days” is meaningless.

              • flatearth
                link
                fedilink
                -4
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Rabbinical scholars don’t believe many things now:
                Then, they believed the prophecy of Daniel and Herod even inquired from them (Herod did not want a rival king, so he ordered all new born infants to be killed. That was why Jesus, Mary and Joseph took refuge in Egypt).
                Rabbinical scholars of now don’t believe in Jesus Christ, and what do you want God to do to them?
                Rabbinical scholars of now don’t believe in Jesus Christ, and you expect me to believe rabbinical scholars?

                Exodus 31:16,17
                Let the children of Israel keep the Sabbath, and celebrate it in their generations. It is an everlasting covenant between me and the children of Israel, and a sign perpetual. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and in the seventh he ceased from work.

                Genesis 2:7
                Our Lord God therefore formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, & man became a living soul.
                [My comment] Not because Adam was difficult to make.

                Genesis 2:22
                And our Lord God built the rib which he took of Adam into a woman, & brought her to Adam.
                [My comment] Wo + man = woman.

              • flatearth
                link
                fedilink
                -5
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                They are literal days but also have mystical signification.
                E.g. The sea (of our earth) can signify worldly people.
                Rock can signify Christ.
                The sun sometimes can signify Christ.
                Stars, candles, salt can signify Christians.
                Jerusalem can signify a place.
                Babylon can signify a place.
                Babylon can signify Antichrist.
                All the examples above are different interpretations amongst 4 kinds of interpretation.

                1. Literal (History is found here. Make sure they don’t contradict. Make sure they are not exclusive).
                2. Moral (you can derive many).
                3. Mystical (etc.)
                4. Anagogical (etc.)

                Before an interpretation is declared to be held universally, theologians can argue.
                A new modern rabbi can even say that 7 days is 2 days and we will begin to argue.
                Now we have AI image generation. If something about God is difficult for you, you can think of modern inventions.
                Theory of evolution by Darwin and others is surely rabbinically modern.
                God chose to create man on the 6th day (days are equally marked), and rest on the seventh.
                The sun marks the day for us.
                The moon marks the season/month.
                Stars mark the year.

                All these are what helped us arrive at our Gregorian calendar.
                If you want me to read your source, please post a link to the rabbinical scholars, because money is capable of damaging a long standing tradition.

        • MxM111
          link
          fedilink
          51 year ago

          You are missing the point. The creation myths were considered complete. Nothing left to be known.

          • Flying SquidM
            link
            fedilink
            91 year ago

            Well yes, people who believe things that aren’t true won’t admit that they don’t know anything. I’m not sure why that’s relevant though.

            • no banana
              link
              fedilink
              3
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I think their actual point was that incomplete explanations are nonetheless explanations. Still wrong though.

            • MxM111
              link
              fedilink
              31 year ago

              You stated “this has been always true” to the statement that we have understanding that things are really complex and difficult to figure out. The answer to you was an example that there were times where we did not have such understanding.

            • flatearth
              link
              fedilink
              -5
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Material things are way below what God planned for man.
              Man (Body + Soul) was meant to be like God (NB God is not material) (in a good way).
              The Bible is not meant to be a physics textbook.
              Nevertheless, God owns everything. So things were talked about here and there…

              • The Bible also isn’t meant to be real. It’s a compendium of stories all put into one book, with tons of different writers. It’s akin to The Odyssey and shouldn’t be taken literally. Zeus didn’t come to Earth as a golden shower to impregnate Danae, and Jesus didn’t come back from the dead. They’re just fables.

                • no banana
                  link
                  fedilink
                  2
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Oh the Bible is definitely meant to explain things. It explains things through a bunch of different world views from different times.

                • flatearth
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -3
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  In the Old Testament, you’ll always see genealogies of key persons being discussed to Adam (the first man).
                  In the New Testament, the genealogy is from Jesus Christ to Adam (in Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts and by Paul I think).
                  Zeus and Diana (profligate) were humans. But pagans deify their rulers.
                  Let me make a second post…

                • flatearth
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -51 year ago

                  The Bible is historical too:
                  When Moyses drowned the Egyptians (Old Testament which Jews held and kept sacred)
                  When Jesus, Mary & Joseph took refuge in Egypt (New Testament which Christians hold and keep sacred)
                  In the first example, we learn that Egyptians used chariots (even far back in the time of Moyses).

                  ‘Satan’ is part of your name, so I guess you know who he was, and who he is now.
                  ‘Satan’ is opposed to the coming of Christ (the reason for all those genealogies).
                  ‘Satan’ would do everything to make people forget why Christ came.
                  ‘Satan’ would make Christmas (we all have our birthdays) to seize.
                  ‘Satan’ wants people to believe that Christ is like Zeus and Mary like Diana (profligate).

                  But you should know that Satan is a fallen angel.

          • XIN
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            If your point was that religions have oversimplified complex science to the point that people thought they fully grasped it, then I agree with you. Otherwise I have no idea what you are trying to say.

          • Flying SquidM
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            I never made that claim, so how can I show you something I never claimed in the first place?