Hymn - kingdom song
church - Kingdom Hall
New Testament - Christian Greek Scriptures
grace - undeserved kindness
God - Jehovah
service - meeting
sermon - talk
member/communicant - publisher
jws re-name things so they seem like they are different than other religions.
(of course we know they are different but that's another story).
i was just thinking about those things where they are like most everyone else in christendom but the re-name it to seem different.. for example god forbid they have a church, it's a "kingdom hall".. they don't have pastors and deacons they have "elders" and "ministerial servants".. they don't have tithing but they will have family heads fill out a paper saying how much they can contribute on a monthly basis (not sure if there is a name for that...unless it's tithing.
Hymn - kingdom song
church - Kingdom Hall
New Testament - Christian Greek Scriptures
grace - undeserved kindness
God - Jehovah
service - meeting
sermon - talk
member/communicant - publisher
would love to stalk you guys on twitter and be stalked in return.
if you're up for some mutual twittering post your handle here.. i'm @undubbed.
.
Only thing I go on twitter for is support independence, so used it for the first time in months today. Would probably bore you.
i'll start: stilton cheese.. (it was a toss up between that and sweet pickled beetroot).. thank you folks..
Pork belly, chicken katsu, French onion soup, chicken noodle soup, warm goat's cheese salad, mozzarella and tomatoes, chocolate, pumpkin pie, kaiserschmarrn, chicken schnitzel, Persian chicken kebab, strawberries, blue cheeses, mussels, whitebait, seabass, potatoes all ways, humus, pancakes with maple syrup.
in his book "the righteous mind" jonathan haidt proposes that religion served - and continues to serve an important role in bringing about cohesion within non-kin groups.. to put it very briefly haidt advocates a form of group selection but only insofar as it applies to humans.
our unique brains have made it possible for us to cooperate in groups in ways that are impossible for all non-human species.
despite their intelligence you will never see two chimps helping each other to carry the same log or one chimp pulling down a branch while the other removes the fruit.. his description is that humans are 90% chimp and 10% bee.
Darwin himself mused that the implication of natural selection is that the human mind is not equipped to perceive reality:
"with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy" (letter to William Graham 3rd of July 1881, Darwin Correspondance Project [online]) [quoted in Gary Gutting, Talking God (2017)]
in his book "the righteous mind" jonathan haidt proposes that religion served - and continues to serve an important role in bringing about cohesion within non-kin groups.. to put it very briefly haidt advocates a form of group selection but only insofar as it applies to humans.
our unique brains have made it possible for us to cooperate in groups in ways that are impossible for all non-human species.
despite their intelligence you will never see two chimps helping each other to carry the same log or one chimp pulling down a branch while the other removes the fruit.. his description is that humans are 90% chimp and 10% bee.
in his book "the righteous mind" jonathan haidt proposes that religion served - and continues to serve an important role in bringing about cohesion within non-kin groups.. to put it very briefly haidt advocates a form of group selection but only insofar as it applies to humans.
our unique brains have made it possible for us to cooperate in groups in ways that are impossible for all non-human species.
despite their intelligence you will never see two chimps helping each other to carry the same log or one chimp pulling down a branch while the other removes the fruit.. his description is that humans are 90% chimp and 10% bee.
in his book "the righteous mind" jonathan haidt proposes that religion served - and continues to serve an important role in bringing about cohesion within non-kin groups.. to put it very briefly haidt advocates a form of group selection but only insofar as it applies to humans.
our unique brains have made it possible for us to cooperate in groups in ways that are impossible for all non-human species.
despite their intelligence you will never see two chimps helping each other to carry the same log or one chimp pulling down a branch while the other removes the fruit.. his description is that humans are 90% chimp and 10% bee.
What is the basis for assuming that perceptions that promote survival are also objectively true perceptions?
I am not sure to what extent we "choose" to believe things. My experience of beliefs is not that I can change them at will through "choice". I can't say I will "choose" to believe in homeopathy for example, because it would involve me accepting various thing I don't find reasonable. Beliefs seem to arise from somewhere deeper inside than simply a choice, such as choosing what to wear or where to go on holiday, and is in some sense involuntary. Do you experience beliefs as a choice?
in his book "the righteous mind" jonathan haidt proposes that religion served - and continues to serve an important role in bringing about cohesion within non-kin groups.. to put it very briefly haidt advocates a form of group selection but only insofar as it applies to humans.
our unique brains have made it possible for us to cooperate in groups in ways that are impossible for all non-human species.
despite their intelligence you will never see two chimps helping each other to carry the same log or one chimp pulling down a branch while the other removes the fruit.. his description is that humans are 90% chimp and 10% bee.
I think the word "even" in the title of the thread is interesting. It seems to imply there is a close correlation between things that are "useful" and things that are "true", such that deviations from this rule would be exceptional rather than commonplace. But is that really true? I'm not sure that's an assumption that should be granted in the fire place.
Which actually touches upon one of the most compelling arguments in favour of God: the argument from evolution. Because if we grant evolution as true then out mental capacities are a result of a long process of refining cognition in the direction of what is useful for survival. And what is useful for survival is not necessarily what is true about the world.
One example (probably not the best since it is disputed) is the psychological bias toward optimism that most humans share, except those who suffer from depression. It's a consistent finding of psychologists that humans are extremely poor at judging risk, and for example consistently underestimate the chances of them encountering major difficulties in life such as major illness, bereavement, unemployment, separation, injury, crime and so on. Interestingly clinically depressed people are much better at assessing the true odds of encountering negative life changing events. Yet the price they pay for having this "true" picture of reality is a mental condition which can be extremely debilitating. The point being this is an example where a "true" picture of reality is not "useful" in that it impacts a person in ways we would normally judge to be detrimental.
In a broader sense, if evolution is true, then it follows that our mental perception is a tool which has been shaped for survival rather than a tool for accurately depicting the world around us.
when the arc made their recommendations to the society last year i genuinely thought we'd see some real changes.
oh sure, i expected a lot of feet dragging, double talk, and general nonsense - but at the end of the day i was certain the society would do what they legally had to and then run around claiming:.
) these new policies and procedures aren't really new we've always done them.
Isn't there still time for them to comply? I didn't think it was the end of the process.
If they were facing the situation in the United States and the GB were compelled to attend the response may be different.
Will something force them to change in the end? If not government action then ultimately discontent from within expressing itself in declining membership and donations?
.
.
just a bit of fun..
Might be a typo for dark but probably not.
The regular dictionary says it means damp and cold which doesn't fit.
But the urban dictionary says it means potent or powerful, as in drugs. That's probably the meaning.
I like Ike the cliff one. Would make good postcards.