Zamfir wrote:DSenette wrote:i would think you'd still be able to attribute "crazy" to the thing they're believe though
But "crazy beliefs" is just short for "beliefs only crazy people would hold". Otherwise, you're better off using a word like "wrong".
i don't think you HAVE to make that extension. you totally could make that extension. but i don't think it's a matter of "if you believe X then you are automatically Y, if X is described as Y".
in Роберт's example, you could reasonably come to understand the why's and how's of the people's beliefs, and understand that it's not SPECIFICALLY that they're crazy, but that they haven't been exposed to any other possible belief. but that doesn't change the lunacy quotient of the belief itself.
if all "wacky" beliefs can just be excused by someone not being exposed to the proper level of reality, then there's no such thing as a wacky belief. and there's no point in doing science to remove the causes of these beliefs.
if by no one you mean "no one in this thread" sure, that's fine. if you mean "no one" as in, not a single person. then no, that' is completely incorrect. people attempt to use the someone verifiable claims in MANY portions of the bible to prove that the parts that aren't verifiable (or flat out false) are true (well, see, this part of the bible talks about a place called babel so that story about how language was created is true)Izawwlgood wrote:DSenette wrote:HOWEVER, the FEW items of historically accurate information contained in GENESIS (SPECIFICALLY) are SO few, and so inconsequential that they DO NOT SERVER as any form of corroboration for the outlandish claims that are also contained in that same said book.
ergo, it SHOULD be a reasonable conclusion that anyone who does believe the outlandish claims contained in genesis, is possibly a bit disconnected from reality as it is observed. you know.....wacky.
Yes, that's fine, that is a nuanced and clarified perspective on the matter, one I concur with. Genesis, as a historical document, has tons of inaccurate crap in it. That does not mean that some of the accounts in Genesis are invalid, because they represent accounts of the activities of people at the time. This is not to say that the world was created in 6 days, but it is to say that the Shebalishes may have been massacred by the Lochranim in the valley of Chutzpah. 'May', of course, being the operative word here. Which is not the same as:DSenette wrote:so yeah, anyone who believes in the book of genesis as a work of history is "wacky" at best.
Which yes, it is a work of history. All of it is a work of history. All of it is not accurate, however.
Furthermore, your claim in the above bolded is a subjective one. Given that you're arguing for accuracy or fact, it seems like you need to support this claim. Because, again, no one is claiming that the outlandish claims in the Book of Genesis, like the creation myth for example, are corroborated by the fact that some dudes did actually kill some other dudes, and it's been recorded.setzer777 wrote:So, let's take it from the other side: what is a belief that we can say that only a crazy person would hold?
I would say any belief that is maintained in the face of valid counter evidence.