dimreepr

But it is part of the bible. Don't forget, my hypothesise includes most other Bible's and thus is mostly immune to cherry picking, esspecially a specific tribe; and given the millenia of time the book covers. IOW no single tribe can write our history or educate us directly, but their wisdom can be inferred and woven into our tribe... 😉 Objectively, you're conflating philosophies with people. Science doesn't care about people, a true (Scotsman) scientist doesn't care what a godophile say's, bc it's irrelevant to one's goal. Policy has infected the religious philosophy so it's more difficult to understand.

Your cherry picking is not a good argument, I didn't say they were "just for kids", but what about Noah's story? If you accept they were intended to educate, then you're suggesting they waited for them to grow to full maturity, before they started the education process; that seems unlikely, even for primitive savage idiots... It work's for some scientists too, for most of us the truth is ugly, unappealing and difficult to understand. We mostly want to be validated, as to our correctness, and we often get angry when asked to justify our beliefs logically, which is why a PhD is difficult to obtain.

Literally, de facto was your first clue. I'm suggesting that the bible, as in the written word, was an attempt to freeze the understanding of the elders and we all know how quickly text book's go out of date. A secondary point, which I think further supports my supposition, is that oral and story telling (metaphoric), transfer of valid information, is far more effective at bridging the generational gap, bc the teacher of the spoken word is capable of filling in the gaps of societal evolution. You've got google, look it up... 😉 I disagree, the biggest difference is the similarity of the people who just want to be right...

How are you qualified?

You could try for PhD, what makes you think my hypothesis is wrong?

Scholars are taking a best guess and you're treating them as purveyors of absolute truth; do you understand?

Here we go... 😇 You have the magic ability to understand, in fine detail, a culture whose language you can't possibly understand... 🙄

I think it might be cultural noise that's distressing you. There's nothing inherently wrong with pleasing one's brain, as long as it's not at the cost of other's; IOW drink what you want, but don't hit anyone. People find solice in many different way's, don't let the army of the righteously indignant bully you into hating your choices.

The bible/s aren't meant as a de facto description of history, it's a teaching aid and some of the stories are meant for children. The conflict from both side's always gravitate around the litteral value, rather than just accepting the value of the recognisable part's, that are clearly 'trying' to convey a message, that we all could benefit from; if we stopped to think about it.

I think the word your seeking is obtuse...

Indeed, being tolerant automatically means you don't like it. I'd say it's anti-Darwinian, in that societal tolerance allows the weaker amongst us to also survive the anger of the intolerant.

So what's your definition of happy, and how does it differ from being content?

doesn't it just...

I think that everything above stage two is cultural noise, and more of a distraction to the stated aim, which I assume is contentment (I haven't read anything by Maslow, other than this image and your synopsis.).

Strikes me that 3 or less is doable...

There's another rat study that shows, when rats are adequately stimulated they prefer ordinary water to the "happy" drugged water; the reverse is true when the prison is obvious.

Isn't that what I, strongly, implied?

It doesn't matter, this has now become a question of free will, and that's a kinda god type question. Sometimes God makes some people happy, usually they're well fed, and some get very hangry...

By dealing weed?

What if your hungry and find a happy meal?

My dog deals with my ego, better than I do; dog's are acutely attuned to our moods and are very skilled at appeasing us.

As Wittgenstein suggested, if they could talk we couldn't have a meaningful conversation with them, other than at a superficial mutual understanding, but they can effectively communicate with us at this level already. You wouldn't try to pet a pit bull if it was growling at you... So I'll repeat myself, what's your point? Animal's don't talk, therefore?

Sometimes, it's more nuanced than that...

Probably shit myself, it's never spoken before... What's your point?

No, I stand by my post, "While expansion velocity can exceed the speed of light", then it's not a velocity.