Do you understand those on the other side?

[Jose Fly]

As I've pointed out many times (probably too many times), I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian environment. I was taught young-earth creationism from an early age, was told prayer and reading the Bible were the answer to most of life's problems and questions, and witnessed all sorts of "interesting" things such as speaking in tongues, faith healing, end times predictions, etc.

Yet despite being completely immersed in this culture, I can't recall a time in my life when I ever believed any of it. However, unlike some of my peers at the time I didn't really find it boring. In fact, I found a lot of it to be rather fascinating because.....very little of it made any sense to me. I just could not understand the people, their beliefs, their way of thinking, or much of anything that I saw and heard. When I saw them anointing with oil someone who had the flu and later saw the virus spread (of course), I could not understand what they were thinking. When I saw them make all sorts of failed predictions about the Soviet Union and the end times, yet never even acknowledge their errors while continuing to make more predictions, I was baffled. Speaking in tongues was of particular interest to me because it really made no sense to me.

In the years that I've been debating creationists it's the same thing. When I see them say "no transitional fossils" or "no new genetic information" only to ignore examples of those things when they're presented, I can't relate to that way of thinking at all. When I see them demand evidence for things only to ignore it after it's provided, I can't relate. When I see them quote mine a scientific paper and after someone points it out they completely ignore it, I can't relate.

Now to be clear, I think I "understand" some of what's behind these behaviors (i.e., the psychological factors), but what I don't understand is how the people engaging in them seem to be completely oblivious to it all. What goes on in their mind when they demand "show me the evidence", ignore everything that's provided in response, and then come back later and make the same demand all over again? Are they so blinded by the need to maintain their beliefs that they literally block out all memories of it? Again....I just don't get it.

So the point of discussion for this thread is....how about you? For the "evolutionists", can you relate to the creationists' way of thinking and behaviors? For the creationists, are there behaviors from the other side that baffle you, and you just don't understand? Do you look at folks like me and think to yourselves, "I just cannot relate to his way of thinking?"

Or is it just me?

[Inquirer]

Once you have all of the red discs, what is the probability of you pulling another red disc Jose?

It is 1/52 only if you return the card after picking each time.

LOL....either you've completely lost the point, or you never got it in the first place. Do you need it explained to you again?

Speaking of ignoring science, let me ask for a third time: Once you have all of the red discs, what is the probability of you pulling another red disc Jose?

Do you think its random? might you get a red disk even though there are none in the bag?

[Jose Fly]

Speaking of ignoring science, let me ask for a third time: Once you have all of the red discs, what is the probability of you pulling another red disc Jose?

Dude, that's completely irrelevant to the point. I can now only conclude that you never understood in the first place. Oh well.

[Inquirer]

Speaking of ignoring science, let me ask for a third time: Once you have all of the red discs, what is the probability of you pulling another red disc Jose?

Dude, that's completely irrelevant to the point. I can now only conclude that you never understood in the first place. Oh well.

How can proving you wrong be irrelevant in a debate?

[Jose Fly]

Perhaps it is a question of intelligence - the differing levels.

It appears to me that those who display obvious intelligence are more accepting of scientific evidence and doing diligent research - there being different types of Christians reflects this observation to some degree.

This is where I've landed. I didn't want to conclude that, but I spent a bit of time lurking in a few forums where non-religious people like me aren't allowed and rereading some of my old interactions with creationists, and this conclusion kept staring me right in the face.

Plus, there is some science that supports it.

Meta-analysis of 83 studies produces ‘very strong’ evidence for a negative relationship between intelligence and religiosity

New research confirms that there is a negative relationship between religiosity and intelligence. The findings have been published in the scientific journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin...

...The researchers also found evidence that cognitive styles explained some of the relationship between religiosity and intelligence. In particular, an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style was related to both increased intelligence and reduced religiosity.

[Jose Fly]

How can proving you wrong be irrelevant in a debate?

Unbelievable.....just staggeringly bizarre to watch.

[Inquirer]

How can proving you wrong be irrelevant in a debate?

Unbelievable.....just staggeringly bizarre to watch.

Enough rhetoric Jose, I respectfully request that you stick to the subject which was your flawed claim that the color of disc pulled from a bag is random when all of the remaining discs are black.

[Jose Fly]

Enough rhetoric Jose, I respectfully request that you stick to the subject which was your flawed claim that the color of disc pulled from a bag is random when all of the remaining discs are black.

I guess you believe that every stats website, textbook, professor, etc. is wrong when they say things like "pulling a card at random".

I honestly have nothing more to add at this point. You just don't seem to get it and I've no interest in trying to explain it to you.

[Inquirer]

Enough rhetoric Jose, I respectfully request that you stick to the subject which was your flawed claim that the color of disc pulled from a bag is random when all of the remaining discs are black.

I guess you believe that every stats website, textbook, professor, etc. is wrong when they say things like "pulling a card at random".

I honestly have nothing more to add at this point. You just don't seem to get it and I've no interest in trying to explain it to you.

Please no allusions to imaginary books about statistics or other hand waving evasion tactics. Dismissing my question is no substitute for answering it honestly.

Where is the randomness please, in reaching into a bag containing only black discs and getting a black disk? This is important for you to understand Jose, particularly if you want use such examples to support claims about evolution.

[JoeyKnothead]

I doubt evolutionary claims for the exact same reason I'd doubt claims of fairies and leprechauns, nothing to do with "religion" being a motivator.

Doubts claims of fairies and leprechauns, accepts belief in god/s.

Why I'll never understand theists.

[Inquirer]

If I did a million tests Jose, and got the number 23 99% of the time and some other number between 1 and 100 the other 1% of the time, would you say that the value 23 was random?