Is belief an intentional act?

[diver52]

I was raised in a family which was Christian and I simply assumed, as a young child, that that is what I was. But when I finally reached an age where I was able to understand what that meant it was clear to me that I was not a Christian. Despite being talked to by many, many people and reading the Bible cover to cover, I have never believed.

However, the first time I read a book on Buddhism, I understand immediately that that was what I believed. Not necessarily all of the details, but the gist of it. I don't mean to say I read and said to myself, "This is cool, I think I'll believe this." I just realized this was the name of what I already believed without ever coming across it before. I never decided to believe, I just did.

So the question to me is whether or not we actually have any control over belief. Has anyone actually sat down and decided that they were going to suddenly start believing that which they did not believe before?

I'm thinking you're misunderstanding the definition of "choice". You seem to think it requires the sentence "I think I'll believe this". In fact, that is exactly what you did, albeit without those words: you made a choice between "This seems real and true to me, and that does not."

No, I didn't. I just found a name to apply to it.

 

[Taz]

5,000 years ago we hadn't even come up with toilet paper. But you think that they were Einsteins. It's a fact that we are getting taller over time, so our brains are becoming bigger as well.

First, toilet paper really isn't a standard for intelligence.
Second, I have let the height thing go because it wasn't really the point. We are not getting taller because of evolution. We got taller because of better nutrition in children and that is pretty much topping off.
Third, our brains are not getting bigger.

You don't need to take my word for it.
How Has the Human Brain Evolved?

Amazing. Did you bother to read it? Pay particular attention to the last paragraph.

So you agree that the brain evolves, that was my point. And yes, we are smarter than when we thought the earth is flat.

Of course the brain evolves. What you said was the brain was getting bigger, I suppose suggesting that would make us smarter. The article actually stated our brain has gotten smaller over the last 100,000 years. Another article I read said it has shrunk about 10%. That does not make us less smart, it just means it's about 10% smaller.

Over time, everything about us is getting bigger, you're just cherry-picking a segment of time because that fits your own narrative. And yes, we are a lot smarter now than when we first made stone tools. Well, some of us anyways...

 

[Taz]

And yes, we are smarter than when we thought the earth is flat.

That would not be "smarter", per se, but rather, "less ignorant".

Exactly. I do not dispute that we know more now than we did then. But that is not the same thing as being smarter.

The smartest guy in the class always knew the most and got the highest marks. Man, you peeps are thick.

 

[Taz]

I rejected it because I see no evidence of it.

You rejected the evidence because you see no evidence? I said you rejected the evidence presented a priori...this response doesn't make sense....

Yes, IQ tests have problems. Yet that doesn't mean the evidence is necessarily no good. dif
d

As to evidence, I would want to see a change in behavior. What about human interaction now is different from 5,000 years ago?

Of course, anyone could rattle of a laubdry list of differences in the human experience, but you will just attribute them to "better tools". So i will pass on the exercise, as the same difference of opinion will remain after.

I did not reject the evidence, I rejected the claim. There was no evidence presented to reject. Our technology is more advanced, but that is a matter of invention leading to invention. We didn't go from stone age to computers in a week. The claim being made is that we have become more intelligent and I see no evidence to support that claim. Intelligence is not determined by what technology you use, but what you do with the technology you have. Someone shooting me in the head with a glock is not more intelligent than someone bashing my head in with a club. Different tool, same behavior.

The guy with the glock and the other guy bashing your head in aren't separated by time. A homonid from 2 million years ago bashing your head in is dumber than the guy with the glock, usually, but like fort, now I'm not so sure.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I was raised in a family which was Christian and I simply assumed, as a young child, that that is what I was. But when I finally reached an age where I was able to understand what that meant it was clear to me that I was not a Christian. Despite being talked to by many, many people and reading the Bible cover to cover, I have never believed.

However, the first time I read a book on Buddhism, I understand immediately that that was what I believed. Not necessarily all of the details, but the gist of it. I don't mean to say I read and said to myself, "This is cool, I think I'll believe this." I just realized this was the name of what I already believed without ever coming across it before. I never decided to believe, I just did.

So the question to me is whether or not we actually have any control over belief. Has anyone actually sat down and decided that they were going to suddenly start believing that which they did not believe before?

I'm thinking you're misunderstanding the definition of "choice". You seem to think it requires the sentence "I think I'll believe this". In fact, that is exactly what you did, albeit without those words: you made a choice between "This seems real and true to me, and that does not."

No, I didn't. I just found a name to apply to it.

I see. So your contention is that you emerged from the womb believing there were no gods and in some form of anatman (you didn't specify WHICH type of Buddhism it was that you were "genetically programmed" as), lived all the way to adulthood in a Christian family somehow thinking that your beliefs were Christianity, and then discovered that what you were REALLY "born as" was a Buddhist of some sort?

I'm dubious.

Sounds a lot more to me like you made a lot of incremental choices about what to believe throughout your life, didn't recognize them for what they were, and then rewrote your memory to suit what you wanted to believe . . . also a choice.

I will also offer you the evidence of people who were NOT raised in any sort of religious belief who, in fact, do exactly what you describe: sit down and decide they are going to believe in a religion.

 

[diver52]

I was raised in a family which was Christian and I simply assumed, as a young child, that that is what I was. But when I finally reached an age where I was able to understand what that meant it was clear to me that I was not a Christian. Despite being talked to by many, many people and reading the Bible cover to cover, I have never believed.

However, the first time I read a book on Buddhism, I understand immediately that that was what I believed. Not necessarily all of the details, but the gist of it. I don't mean to say I read and said to myself, "This is cool, I think I'll believe this." I just realized this was the name of what I already believed without ever coming across it before. I never decided to believe, I just did.

So the question to me is whether or not we actually have any control over belief. Has anyone actually sat down and decided that they were going to suddenly start believing that which they did not believe before?

I'm thinking you're misunderstanding the definition of "choice". You seem to think it requires the sentence "I think I'll believe this". In fact, that is exactly what you did, albeit without those words: you made a choice between "This seems real and true to me, and that does not."

No, I didn't. I just found a name to apply to it.

I see. So your contention is that you emerged from the womb believing there were no gods and in some form of anatman (you didn't specify WHICH type of Buddhism it was that you were "genetically programmed" as), lived all the way to adulthood in a Christian family somehow thinking that your beliefs were Christianity, and then discovered that what you were REALLY "born as" was a Buddhist of some sort?

I'm dubious.

Sounds a lot more to me like you made a lot of incremental choices about what to believe throughout your life, didn't recognize them for what they were, and then rewrote your memory to suit what you wanted to believe . . . also a choice.

I will also offer you the evidence of people who were NOT raised in any sort of religious belief who, in fact, do exactly what you describe: sit down and decide they are going to believe in a religion.

Ok. Offer it.

 

[BreezeWood]

I did not reject the evidence, I rejected the claim.

You absolutely and immediately dismissed the IQ evidence. Come on, let's not go in circles. As evidenced by the fact that you didnt even exAmine the IQ evidence, yet are saying you see no evidence. You rejected that evidence a priori. That's a fact.

What change in behavior would be compelling evidence to you? That was a non answer by you, and a copout. I asked what evidence would compel you, and that was your non answer. So, let's pin you down further and ask: what behavioral change?

Ok. I'll give you that. I still reject it because you can't go back 5,000 years and give the population of the earth the same test, nor has that test been given to most of the current population. But I will grant you that it is evidence and I did reject it.

I'll give you an example of behavior. We are currently poisoning ourselves. There is as large a consensus among the scientific community on that as you could expect when it comes to humans. We know we are poisoning ourselves, we know how we are poisoning ourselves and we know pretty much what we have to do to stop it. We continue to poison ourselves. My prediction is that once this problem finally reaches the point of being catastrophic we will at last get together, form committees, and try to figure out who is to blame. What we won't do is stop poisoning ourselves.

My friend, human beings are clever. We can make all kinds of clever things. But smart is not a word I would apply to us.

.

Ok. I'll give you that. I still reject it because you can't go back 5,000 years and give the population of the earth the same test, nor has that test been given to most of the current population. But I will grant you that it is evidence and I did reject it.

.

- the earliest undisputed evidence of life on Earth dates from at least 3.5 billion years ago.

what they are saying is the first instance that established all life on Earth the initial primordial single cell being's intelligence is the same today as it was with the first instance that established life on Earth. (supposedly) only the intelligence's physiology has changed ... all beings having the same voltage.

of course they run from the metaphysical origin the initial intelligence took from in putting itself together.

physiology alone is a determining factor however its similarity can not be overlooked by the intelligence that created it and the diverse intricacies that do exist among all life forms both fauna and flora.

 

[diver52]

I did not reject the evidence, I rejected the claim.

You absolutely and immediately dismissed the IQ evidence. Come on, let's not go in circles. As evidenced by the fact that you didnt even exAmine the IQ evidence, yet are saying you see no evidence. You rejected that evidence a priori. That's a fact.

What change in behavior would be compelling evidence to you? That was a non answer by you, and a copout. I asked what evidence would compel you, and that was your non answer. So, let's pin you down further and ask: what behavioral change?

Ok. I'll give you that. I still reject it because you can't go back 5,000 years and give the population of the earth the same test, nor has that test been given to most of the current population. But I will grant you that it is evidence and I did reject it.

I'll give you an example of behavior. We are currently poisoning ourselves. There is as large a consensus among the scientific community on that as you could expect when it comes to humans. We know we are poisoning ourselves, we know how we are poisoning ourselves and we know pretty much what we have to do to stop it. We continue to poison ourselves. My prediction is that once this problem finally reaches the point of being catastrophic we will at last get together, form committees, and try to figure out who is to blame. What we won't do is stop poisoning ourselves.

My friend, human beings are clever. We can make all kinds of clever things. But smart is not a word I would apply to us.

.

Ok. I'll give you that. I still reject it because you can't go back 5,000 years and give the population of the earth the same test, nor has that test been given to most of the current population. But I will grant you that it is evidence and I did reject it.

.

- the earliest undisputed evidence of life on Earth dates from at least 3.5 billion years ago.

what they are saying is the first instance that established all life on Earth the initial primordial single cell being's intelligence is the same today as it was with the first instance that established life on Earth. (supposedly) only the intelligence's physiology has changed ... all beings having the same voltage.

of course they run from the metaphysical origin the initial intelligence took from in putting itself together.

physiology alone is a determining factor however its similarity can not be overlooked by the intelligence that created it and the diverse intricacies that do exist among all life forms both fauna and flora.

I seriously doubt that is what they are saying.

 

[BreezeWood]

I did not reject the evidence, I rejected the claim.

You absolutely and immediately dismissed the IQ evidence. Come on, let's not go in circles. As evidenced by the fact that you didnt even exAmine the IQ evidence, yet are saying you see no evidence. You rejected that evidence a priori. That's a fact.

What change in behavior would be compelling evidence to you? That was a non answer by you, and a copout. I asked what evidence would compel you, and that was your non answer. So, let's pin you down further and ask: what behavioral change?

Ok. I'll give you that. I still reject it because you can't go back 5,000 years and give the population of the earth the same test, nor has that test been given to most of the current population. But I will grant you that it is evidence and I did reject it.

I'll give you an example of behavior. We are currently poisoning ourselves. There is as large a consensus among the scientific community on that as you could expect when it comes to humans. We know we are poisoning ourselves, we know how we are poisoning ourselves and we know pretty much what we have to do to stop it. We continue to poison ourselves. My prediction is that once this problem finally reaches the point of being catastrophic we will at last get together, form committees, and try to figure out who is to blame. What we won't do is stop poisoning ourselves.

My friend, human beings are clever. We can make all kinds of clever things. But smart is not a word I would apply to us.

.

Ok. I'll give you that. I still reject it because you can't go back 5,000 years and give the population of the earth the same test, nor has that test been given to most of the current population. But I will grant you that it is evidence and I did reject it.

.

- the earliest undisputed evidence of life on Earth dates from at least 3.5 billion years ago.

what they are saying is the first instance that established all life on Earth the initial primordial single cell being's intelligence is the same today as it was with the first instance that established life on Earth. (supposedly) only the intelligence's physiology has changed ... all beings having the same voltage.

of course they run from the metaphysical origin the initial intelligence took from in putting itself together.

physiology alone is a determining factor however its similarity can not be overlooked by the intelligence that created it and the diverse intricacies that do exist among all life forms both fauna and flora.

I seriously doubt that is what they are saying.

.

I seriously doubt that is what they are saying.

the presumption was your point that the initial primordial intelligence is all there is without change to this day - only physical changes have occurred. physiological.

 

[diver52]

I did not reject the evidence, I rejected the claim.

You absolutely and immediately dismissed the IQ evidence. Come on, let's not go in circles. As evidenced by the fact that you didnt even exAmine the IQ evidence, yet are saying you see no evidence. You rejected that evidence a priori. That's a fact.

What change in behavior would be compelling evidence to you? That was a non answer by you, and a copout. I asked what evidence would compel you, and that was your non answer. So, let's pin you down further and ask: what behavioral change?

Ok. I'll give you that. I still reject it because you can't go back 5,000 years and give the population of the earth the same test, nor has that test been given to most of the current population. But I will grant you that it is evidence and I did reject it.

I'll give you an example of behavior. We are currently poisoning ourselves. There is as large a consensus among the scientific community on that as you could expect when it comes to humans. We know we are poisoning ourselves, we know how we are poisoning ourselves and we know pretty much what we have to do to stop it. We continue to poison ourselves. My prediction is that once this problem finally reaches the point of being catastrophic we will at last get together, form committees, and try to figure out who is to blame. What we won't do is stop poisoning ourselves.

My friend, human beings are clever. We can make all kinds of clever things. But smart is not a word I would apply to us.

.

Ok. I'll give you that. I still reject it because you can't go back 5,000 years and give the population of the earth the same test, nor has that test been given to most of the current population. But I will grant you that it is evidence and I did reject it.

.

- the earliest undisputed evidence of life on Earth dates from at least 3.5 billion years ago.

what they are saying is the first instance that established all life on Earth the initial primordial single cell being's intelligence is the same today as it was with the first instance that established life on Earth. (supposedly) only the intelligence's physiology has changed ... all beings having the same voltage.

of course they run from the metaphysical origin the initial intelligence took from in putting itself together.

physiology alone is a determining factor however its similarity can not be overlooked by the intelligence that created it and the diverse intricacies that do exist among all life forms both fauna and flora.

I seriously doubt that is what they are saying.

.

I seriously doubt that is what they are saying.

the presumption was your point that the initial primordial intelligence is all there is without change to this day - only physical changes have occurred. physiological.

That was not my point. I never said anything even remotely like it.

 

[BreezeWood]

You absolutely and immediately dismissed the IQ evidence. Come on, let's not go in circles. As evidenced by the fact that you didnt even exAmine the IQ evidence, yet are saying you see no evidence. You rejected that evidence a priori. That's a fact.

What change in behavior would be compelling evidence to you? That was a non answer by you, and a copout. I asked what evidence would compel you, and that was your non answer. So, let's pin you down further and ask: what behavioral change?

Ok. I'll give you that. I still reject it because you can't go back 5,000 years and give the population of the earth the same test, nor has that test been given to most of the current population. But I will grant you that it is evidence and I did reject it.

I'll give you an example of behavior. We are currently poisoning ourselves. There is as large a consensus among the scientific community on that as you could expect when it comes to humans. We know we are poisoning ourselves, we know how we are poisoning ourselves and we know pretty much what we have to do to stop it. We continue to poison ourselves. My prediction is that once this problem finally reaches the point of being catastrophic we will at last get together, form committees, and try to figure out who is to blame. What we won't do is stop poisoning ourselves.

My friend, human beings are clever. We can make all kinds of clever things. But smart is not a word I would apply to us.

.

Ok. I'll give you that. I still reject it because you can't go back 5,000 years and give the population of the earth the same test, nor has that test been given to most of the current population. But I will grant you that it is evidence and I did reject it.

.

- the earliest undisputed evidence of life on Earth dates from at least 3.5 billion years ago.

what they are saying is the first instance that established all life on Earth the initial primordial single cell being's intelligence is the same today as it was with the first instance that established life on Earth. (supposedly) only the intelligence's physiology has changed ... all beings having the same voltage.

of course they run from the metaphysical origin the initial intelligence took from in putting itself together.

physiology alone is a determining factor however its similarity can not be overlooked by the intelligence that created it and the diverse intricacies that do exist among all life forms both fauna and flora.

I seriously doubt that is what they are saying.

.

I seriously doubt that is what they are saying.

the presumption was your point that the initial primordial intelligence is all there is without change to this day - only physical changes have occurred. physiological.

That was not my point. I never said anything even remotely like it.

.

That was not my point. I never said anything even remotely like it.

then what is not getting any smarter .... you might have elucidated in contrast what your point is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I was raised in a family which was Christian and I simply assumed, as a young child, that that is what I was. But when I finally reached an age where I was able to understand what that meant it was clear to me that I was not a Christian. Despite being talked to by many, many people and reading the Bible cover to cover, I have never believed.

However, the first time I read a book on Buddhism, I understand immediately that that was what I believed. Not necessarily all of the details, but the gist of it. I don't mean to say I read and said to myself, "This is cool, I think I'll believe this." I just realized this was the name of what I already believed without ever coming across it before. I never decided to believe, I just did.

So the question to me is whether or not we actually have any control over belief. Has anyone actually sat down and decided that they were going to suddenly start believing that which they did not believe before?

I'm thinking you're misunderstanding the definition of "choice". You seem to think it requires the sentence "I think I'll believe this". In fact, that is exactly what you did, albeit without those words: you made a choice between "This seems real and true to me, and that does not."

No, I didn't. I just found a name to apply to it.

I see. So your contention is that you emerged from the womb believing there were no gods and in some form of anatman (you didn't specify WHICH type of Buddhism it was that you were "genetically programmed" as), lived all the way to adulthood in a Christian family somehow thinking that your beliefs were Christianity, and then discovered that what you were REALLY "born as" was a Buddhist of some sort?

I'm dubious.

Sounds a lot more to me like you made a lot of incremental choices about what to believe throughout your life, didn't recognize them for what they were, and then rewrote your memory to suit what you wanted to believe . . . also a choice.

I will also offer you the evidence of people who were NOT raised in any sort of religious belief who, in fact, do exactly what you describe: sit down and decide they are going to believe in a religion.

Ok. Offer it.

I just did, lackwit. Are you really going to try to pretend that there's some question that religious converts exist? 'Cause if so, speak up and let me skip right toward filing you in the "too stupid to walk and breathe at the same time" file.

 

[Taz]

I was raised in a family which was Christian and I simply assumed, as a young child, that that is what I was. But when I finally reached an age where I was able to understand what that meant it was clear to me that I was not a Christian. Despite being talked to by many, many people and reading the Bible cover to cover, I have never believed.

However, the first time I read a book on Buddhism, I understand immediately that that was what I believed. Not necessarily all of the details, but the gist of it. I don't mean to say I read and said to myself, "This is cool, I think I'll believe this." I just realized this was the name of what I already believed without ever coming across it before. I never decided to believe, I just did.

So the question to me is whether or not we actually have any control over belief. Has anyone actually sat down and decided that they were going to suddenly start believing that which they did not believe before?

I'm thinking you're misunderstanding the definition of "choice". You seem to think it requires the sentence "I think I'll believe this". In fact, that is exactly what you did, albeit without those words: you made a choice between "This seems real and true to me, and that does not."

No, I didn't. I just found a name to apply to it.

I see. So your contention is that you emerged from the womb believing there were no gods and in some form of anatman (you didn't specify WHICH type of Buddhism it was that you were "genetically programmed" as), lived all the way to adulthood in a Christian family somehow thinking that your beliefs were Christianity, and then discovered that what you were REALLY "born as" was a Buddhist of some sort?

I'm dubious.

Sounds a lot more to me like you made a lot of incremental choices about what to believe throughout your life, didn't recognize them for what they were, and then rewrote your memory to suit what you wanted to believe . . . also a choice.

I will also offer you the evidence of people who were NOT raised in any sort of religious belief who, in fact, do exactly what you describe: sit down and decide they are going to believe in a religion.

Ok. Offer it.

I just did, lackwit. Are you really going to try to pretend that there's some question that religious converts exist? 'Cause if so, speak up and let me skip right toward filing you in the "too stupid to walk and breathe at the same time" file.

I love it when Ceecee gets out her dominatrix gear.

 

[diver52]

I was raised in a family which was Christian and I simply assumed, as a young child, that that is what I was. But when I finally reached an age where I was able to understand what that meant it was clear to me that I was not a Christian. Despite being talked to by many, many people and reading the Bible cover to cover, I have never believed.

However, the first time I read a book on Buddhism, I understand immediately that that was what I believed. Not necessarily all of the details, but the gist of it. I don't mean to say I read and said to myself, "This is cool, I think I'll believe this." I just realized this was the name of what I already believed without ever coming across it before. I never decided to believe, I just did.

So the question to me is whether or not we actually have any control over belief. Has anyone actually sat down and decided that they were going to suddenly start believing that which they did not believe before?

I'm thinking you're misunderstanding the definition of "choice". You seem to think it requires the sentence "I think I'll believe this". In fact, that is exactly what you did, albeit without those words: you made a choice between "This seems real and true to me, and that does not."

No, I didn't. I just found a name to apply to it.

I see. So your contention is that you emerged from the womb believing there were no gods and in some form of anatman (you didn't specify WHICH type of Buddhism it was that you were "genetically programmed" as), lived all the way to adulthood in a Christian family somehow thinking that your beliefs were Christianity, and then discovered that what you were REALLY "born as" was a Buddhist of some sort?

I'm dubious.

Sounds a lot more to me like you made a lot of incremental choices about what to believe throughout your life, didn't recognize them for what they were, and then rewrote your memory to suit what you wanted to believe . . . also a choice.

I will also offer you the evidence of people who were NOT raised in any sort of religious belief who, in fact, do exactly what you describe: sit down and decide they are going to believe in a religion.

Ok. Offer it.

I just did, lackwit. Are you really going to try to pretend that there's some question that religious converts exist? 'Cause if so, speak up and let me skip right toward filing you in the "too stupid to walk and breathe at the same time" file.

You offered zero, just ranted. You said you would offer. Perhaps my mistake was to read your post, since you apparently didn't. By all means, put me in whatever file you like.

 

[ding]

I'm thinking you're misunderstanding the definition of "choice". You seem to think it requires the sentence "I think I'll believe this". In fact, that is exactly what you did, albeit without those words: you made a choice between "This seems real and true to me, and that does not."

No, I didn't. I just found a name to apply to it.

I see. So your contention is that you emerged from the womb believing there were no gods and in some form of anatman (you didn't specify WHICH type of Buddhism it was that you were "genetically programmed" as), lived all the way to adulthood in a Christian family somehow thinking that your beliefs were Christianity, and then discovered that what you were REALLY "born as" was a Buddhist of some sort?

I'm dubious.

Sounds a lot more to me like you made a lot of incremental choices about what to believe throughout your life, didn't recognize them for what they were, and then rewrote your memory to suit what you wanted to believe . . . also a choice.

I will also offer you the evidence of people who were NOT raised in any sort of religious belief who, in fact, do exactly what you describe: sit down and decide they are going to believe in a religion.

Ok. Offer it.

I just did, lackwit. Are you really going to try to pretend that there's some question that religious converts exist? 'Cause if so, speak up and let me skip right toward filing you in the "too stupid to walk and breathe at the same time" file.

You offered zero, just ranted. You said you would offer. Perhaps my mistake was to read your post, since you apparently didn't. By all means, put me in whatever file you like.

I didn’t believe in God even though I never consciously believed I didn’t. Then one day I realized that I had never really believed in God.

So I began a journey of discovery. I spent over 10 years on that journey. I studied all sorts of things including all of the major religions and even some of the primal religions.

At the end of it all I concluded that it couldn’t be any other way. It’s not the conclusion I would have expected at the start of the journey. In fact, I kept trying to convince myself otherwise.

 

[ding]

And yes, we are smarter than when we thought the earth is flat.

That would not be "smarter", per se, but rather, "less ignorant".

Exactly. I do not dispute that we know more now than we did then. But that is not the same thing as being smarter.

The smartest guy in the class always knew the most and got the highest marks. Man, you peeps are thick.

Physiologically speaking, we aren’t much different than we were 10,000 years ago. Just taller.

Knowledge is not intelligence. They are two different things. If you cannot understand the distinction, you may not be very intelligent.

 

[Taz]

And yes, we are smarter than when we thought the earth is flat.

That would not be "smarter", per se, but rather, "less ignorant".

Exactly. I do not dispute that we know more now than we did then. But that is not the same thing as being smarter.

The smartest guy in the class always knew the most and got the highest marks. Man, you peeps are thick.

Physiologically speaking, we aren’t much different than we were 10,000 years ago. Just taller.

Knowledge is not intelligence. They are two different things. If you cannot understand the distinction, you may not be very intelligent.

Humans are evolving to be smarter. You cannot seriously pretend that they were just as smart 2000 years ago. That’s dumb.

 

[ding]

And yes, we are smarter than when we thought the earth is flat.

That would not be "smarter", per se, but rather, "less ignorant".

Exactly. I do not dispute that we know more now than we did then. But that is not the same thing as being smarter.

The smartest guy in the class always knew the most and got the highest marks. Man, you peeps are thick.

Physiologically speaking, we aren’t much different than we were 10,000 years ago. Just taller.

Knowledge is not intelligence. They are two different things. If you cannot understand the distinction, you may not be very intelligent.

Humans are evolving to be smarter. You cannot seriously pretend that they were just as smart 2000 years ago. That’s dumb.

What part of we are physiologically the same as humans from 10,000 years ago did you not understand?

Are our brains bigger? Do our brains process information faster? What exactly in our brains is different?

 

[Taz]

That would not be "smarter", per se, but rather, "less ignorant".

Exactly. I do not dispute that we know more now than we did then. But that is not the same thing as being smarter.

The smartest guy in the class always knew the most and got the highest marks. Man, you peeps are thick.

Physiologically speaking, we aren’t much different than we were 10,000 years ago. Just taller.

Knowledge is not intelligence. They are two different things. If you cannot understand the distinction, you may not be very intelligent.

Humans are evolving to be smarter. You cannot seriously pretend that they were just as smart 2000 years ago. That’s dumb.

What part of we are physiologically the same as humans from 10,000 years ago did you not understand?

Are our brains bigger? Do our brains process information faster? What exactly in our brains is different?

We don’t know enough about the brain yet, but the fact is, we are smarter than 2000 years ago when we hadn’t even come up with toilet paper yet.

 

[ding]

Exactly. I do not dispute that we know more now than we did then. But that is not the same thing as being smarter.

The smartest guy in the class always knew the most and got the highest marks. Man, you peeps are thick.

Physiologically speaking, we aren’t much different than we were 10,000 years ago. Just taller.

Knowledge is not intelligence. They are two different things. If you cannot understand the distinction, you may not be very intelligent.

Humans are evolving to be smarter. You cannot seriously pretend that they were just as smart 2000 years ago. That’s dumb.

What part of we are physiologically the same as humans from 10,000 years ago did you not understand?

Are our brains bigger? Do our brains process information faster? What exactly in our brains is different?

We don’t know enough about the brain yet, but the fact is, we are smarter than 2000 years ago when we hadn’t even come up with toilet paper yet.

You just said the brain evolved to make us smarter.

Now you are saying we don’t know enough.