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]

Do you think the resurrection of Christ described in the New Testament is a myth?

At best.

Do you think it's literal truth?

As opposed to what other kind of truth?

Do you think it’s truth?

What is truth? does it differ from literal truth?

But you claimed it is myth, how did you establish that?

To establish any proposition about the past (that is if you subscribe to science and logic) you must first assert premises and then reason from them, so tell us please, what premises did you use when establishing it was a myth?

It's a simple, straightforward question that I am sure you understand, so why the reluctance to answer? Do you think the resurrection of Christ described in the New Testament actually happened? Not too hard to say yes or no is it?

So is mine - which kind of truth - that's a very simple question.

Lets assume I defend the resurrection from the perspective of historic truth and then Joey decides to attack my defense on the basis of scientific truth?

I cannot defend the resurrection on the basis of scientific truth and would never attempt to, hence my question.

But an honest genuine debate is a rare thing in forums where egos run rampant.

[Inquirer]

So, anyway, didya get a kicking from a mule or dintcha? it might help explain some things if you did, that's why I'm asking,

Refuses to answer a question I put to him, continues to ask me unrelated questions.

This, ladies and germs, is the cutting edge in Christian 'debate'.

But let's not get on him too much for it. Who here ain't ever tried to divert attention away when to answer a question honestly'll make us look goofier'n a cartoon dog?

I, for one, applaud Inquirer's stellar ability to make excuses for why he refuses to answer a simple question, while asking me a series of questions totally unrelated to the issue at hand. It just goes to show that trying to get an honest answer out of some Christians is harder'n pulling hens teeth, and ya got someone to hold their beaks open when ya do.

I might as well fetch on out and ask ole one eye on the one side but not none on the other'n Henry there what he thinks about all this, for what good this'n here's adoing.

but if you're embarrassed that's OK, I'm sure it wasn't the first time you've licked your wounds...

I'm just embarrassed you ain't been embarrassed enough to answer a simple question.

Alas, when honor and integrity mean nothing, we're all apt to hear a Bible thumping in the background.

There are different forms of truth and these have different kinds of premises, if you want to know if the resurrection story is true then you have to be clear on whether your seeking scientific support or historic support, you do not know what kind of truth your seeking so I cannot answer your question.

I can and will readily argue that the resurrection story is true but not on the basis of science, so why waste my time if you're going to object to my position on the basis of science? which you will likely do.

You don't want to say "I'm interested in historic truth here" because then you'll be forced to concede because I can show that you accept a huge number of things as true that are historic truths.

I raised this before and just as you are doing now you avoided this reality, if you want to debate me then tell me what kind of truth, that's all you have to do and I'll dismantle you as I've done in this forum several times.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to brunumb in post #377]

The universe is not there to make us possible. We are possible because of the universe.

This is the key point that most fine tuning proponents don't get, or conveniently ignore. It should be obvious from the type of life that does exist on this planet, which arose and diversified within the ranges of temperature, pressure, atmospheric composition, water availability, etc. that existed. As these parameters changed so did the forms of life that could exist as they had to be compatible with the environment, not the other way around.

Before the "great oxygenation event" organisms dependent on breathing oxygen didn't exist, and couldn't as there was no O2 to breathe, while all of the physical constants that are supposedly "fine tuned" had the same values they did before life existed (and considering just Earth, for some 9 billions year or more). The whole fine tuning argument is nonsensical unless it is believed that the entire universe developed with us special humans in mind on this one planet as some sort of end result of "creation." If that were the case, the 99.9999999999999%+ of the universe that isn't earth would seem to be a giant waste of creation time and effort.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #382]

I can and will readily argue that the resurrection story is true but not on the basis of science, so why waste my time if you're going to object to my position on the basis of science? which you will likely do.

In this forum section that is probably true. If you admit it can't be shown to be true via scientific analysis, you're better off debating the subject in another section where science arguments against it don't carry as much weight. And of course there have been many threads on this subject in multiple sections over the years given its importance to Christianity, with threads in this section mostly focusing on the scientific evidence for/against the story.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #368]

Roger Penrose..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose

Calculated that the chances of our universe being life permitting by mere chance...

10^123 to 1

That is 1, followed by 123 zeros.

Astronomical number.

I didn't see any reference to this 10^123 number in the Wikipedia article (and didn't chase the hundreds of links in the article to try and find it), but here's another source with some comments and estimates:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1523233113

There are too many unknowns to really put a number on the probability of an abiogenesis event, but again any "pure chance" estimates are irrelevent because chemistry isn't random.

[JoeyKnothead]

There are different forms of truth and these have different kinds of premises, if you want to know if the resurrection story is true then you have to be clear on whether your seeking scientific support or historic support, you do not know what kind of truth your seeking so I cannot answer your question.

We notice you're all set to fret on how I might use the term "truth", yet, in the post that brought me into all this...

Do you think the resurrection of Christ described in the New Testament is a myth?

Here you either leave the question of which type of myth open for the respondent to sort out, or you felt it would be obvious, given the context, what you was getting at.

So now that the question's been turned back onto you, only now, now you seek to determine what "truth" means - as you obviously can't discern what it means from within the context of the comments in which it was presented.

This double standard of yours reeks of hypocrisy, ignorance, shenanigans, or all that, none of which bode well for your reputation in these debates.

So, PICK YOU OUT THE "TYPE" OF TRUTH YOU WISH TO USE TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTION PUT BEFORE YOU...

Do you think the resurrection of Christ described in the New Testament is truth?

Returning to Inquirer's Post 382...

I can and will readily argue that the resurrection story is true but not on the basis of science, so why waste my time if you're going to object to my position on the basis of science? which you will likely do.

Please note, the question presented to you, as I've made known in a previous comment, is reflective of belief, and not necessarily subject to expectations of support.

Of course, supporting that belief might help restore your tattered reputation.

You don't want to say "I'm interested in historic truth here" because then you'll be forced to concede because I can show that you accept a huge number of things as true that are historic truths.

Until you present your answer, I have no way of knowing how I might proceed.

If you say such as, "Naw Joey, it's just it a goofy tale told by folks who couldn't tell their Shinola from nothing", I'd likely agree, and we'd just move along to our next topic.

I raised this before and just as you are doing now you avoided this reality, if you want to debate me then tell me what kind of truth, that's all you have to do and I'll dismantle you as I've done in this forum several times.

The reality here is you had no problem asking about a myth, the type of which you didn't bother to define, only to now become all confused and concerned on how difficult it is to just answer the question put to you.

But that's cool. We all now have one, or more, data points by which we can further confirm there's some Christians who prefer to play word games, to dodge questions, or to just dance around, arms aflailling, than to just up and confess they believe em something goofy.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #1]

Do you look at folks like me and think to yourselves, "I just cannot relate to his way of thinking?"

Yes, I often have those thoughts, but mine are typically toward the stereotyped liberal ideology (which may or may not be what defines you). There are many topics in that worldview that I seriously cannot wrap my head around. For example, this is particularly evident in the abortion argument. Science tells us we are talking about a human life, and yet the left has no problem saying one human can decide/determine if another innocent human gets to live or die.

Now, of course I can understand their emotion based argument of how difficult and hard an unplanned pregnancy might be, but to justify such a ‘might makes right’ conclusion is something I cannot relate to.

And it seems to me you are directing your, “I don’t understand them” toward fundamentalist Christians. I agree with almost everything you said regarding how can those Christians believe what they believe when it is shown science/reality contradicts their view.

I would describe myself as a conservative Catholic Christian, but do not get when so many Christians fall for end time prophesies or think evolution is somehow contrary to Christian belief. Or those Christians who refuse medical help (vaccines/blood transfusions/medicine) as somehow being unethical or immoral.

You are correct. I cannot wrap my head around what drives them. What motivates them in their faith. How do they reconcile the discrepancies.

I do think you might have some misunderstanding however on some of the things you mentioned. For example, you said you witnessed speaking in tongues. Did you think it was fake or set up? Or did you just mean you find those who specifically seek ‘speaking in tongues’ as some kind of magic power to achieve as foolish? To which I would agree. However, I do believe speaking in tongues exists and even has its purposes, but perhaps not what some zealous Christians attribute to it.

I also believe in the power of prayer and that yes miracle healings can and do happen, but I would oppose any of those mega church type spiritual revivals where they ask people for money and heal people on stage type of thing. I agree that seems sketch and lends itself to con.

So I think maybe you are relying on specific and extreme beliefs that you don’t buy into, to which I agree, and with good reason. But I also think perhaps you aren’t fully understanding healthy and true understanding of God, where there is no contradiction between God and science. And in fact, the more that science reveals, the more one can come to appreciate the amazing living God.

So, I guess my point is, perhaps you can’t relate to those you see as ‘the other’ because you don’t fully know what it is they actually believe. Like I said, I am a Christian, but have not found anything in my Christian beliefs that has been demonstrated to be false, but I still believe. If anything, I continue to be amazed at how much the Bible and the Church get right. Current worldview ideologies pale in comparison to the Church’s wisdom and insight.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #382]

I can and will readily argue that the resurrection story is true but not on the basis of science, so why waste my time if you're going to object to my position on the basis of science? which you will likely do.

In this forum section that is probably true. If you admit it can't be shown to be true via scientific analysis, you're better off debating the subject in another section where science arguments against it don't carry as much weight.

So direct that advice at Joey, he is the person that wanted to debate the resurrection. Besides I have primarily been asking him what variety of truth he is referring to, that is a question not a position I adopted. He claimed the resurrection was a myth.

[Inquirer]

There are different forms of truth and these have different kinds of premises, if you want to know if the resurrection story is true then you have to be clear on whether your seeking scientific support or historic support, you do not know what kind of truth your seeking so I cannot answer your question.

We notice you're all set to fret on how I might use the term "truth", yet, in the post that brought me into all this...

Do you think the resurrection of Christ described in the New Testament is a myth?

Here you either leave the question of which type of myth open for the respondent to sort out, or you felt it would be obvious, given the context, what you was getting at.

So now that the question's been turned back onto you, only now, now you seek to determine what "truth" means - as you obviously can't discern what it means from within the context of the comments in which it was presented.

This double standard of yours reeks of hypocrisy, ignorance, shenanigans, or all that, none of which bode well for your reputation in these debates.

So, PICK YOU OUT THE "TYPE" OF TRUTH YOU WISH TO USE TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTION PUT BEFORE YOU...

Do you think the resurrection of Christ described in the New Testament is truth?

Returning to Inquirer's Post 382...

I can and will readily argue that the resurrection story is true but not on the basis of science, so why waste my time if you're going to object to my position on the basis of science? which you will likely do.

Please note, the question presented to you, as I've made known in a previous comment, is reflective of belief, and not necessarily subject to expectations of support.

Of course, supporting that belief might help restore your tattered reputation.

You don't want to say "I'm interested in historic truth here" because then you'll be forced to concede because I can show that you accept a huge number of things as true that are historic truths.

Until you present your answer, I have no way of knowing how I might proceed.

If you say such as, "Naw Joey, it's just it a goofy tale told by folks who couldn't tell their Shinola from nothing", I'd likely agree, and we'd just move along to our next topic.

I raised this before and just as you are doing now you avoided this reality, if you want to debate me then tell me what kind of truth, that's all you have to do and I'll dismantle you as I've done in this forum several times.

The reality here is you had no problem asking about a myth, the type of which you didn't bother to define, only to now become all confused and concerned on how difficult it is to just answer the question put to you.

But that's cool. We all now have one, or more, data points by which we can further confirm there's some Christians who prefer to play word games, to dodge questions, or to just dance around, arms aflailling, than to just up and confess they believe em something goofy.

I've stopped reading your posts, so consider that when composing another lengthy diatribe, probably not the best use of your time.

[Jose Fly]

I am with Jose Fly in that I cannot relate to the science denial and the refusal to see fantastic Bible stories as myths with symbolic rather than literal truth. I suppose when very young I may have accepted the stories. I accepted the Samson story I know. But as I got older it seemed more and more obvious that the literal and inerrant view of the Bible was the wrong approach. What I do understand is fear fundamentalists have that if they make any concession about the literal perfection of the Bible as the Holy Word of God, they will be on the slippery slope to apostasy and Hell.

For me, it's not so much what they believe that baffles me, it's how they behave. People believe all sorts of things, so I don't think Christianity is all that unique in that regard.

As I noted in the OP, it's behaviors like confidently claiming "X doesn't exist", being shown examples of X, ignoring them, and later repeating "X doesn't exist". Not only is it weird in terms of the level of denial, it's weird in how the person apparently doesn't think anyone else notices.

Just the other day I was reading some of my very old (2006) exchanges with a creationist, where she kept insisting that I'd never addressed a page from AiG. No matter how many times I showed that I did (by posting a link to where I did and even reposting my rebuttal), she just kept repeating "You ignored the AiG page I posted". IMO, that's not only bizarre, it's borderline psychotic.

Just this week in this very thread we had a person boldly claim he'd debate me anywhere, anytime. But as soon as I posted links to published papers that conflicted with his claims, he ignored them (even though I posted them in the context of pointing out how he habitually ignores data).

But today I came across this article: Overconfidence bolsters anti-scientific views, study finds

"Our research suggests that there may be a problem of overconfidence getting in the way of learning, because if people think they know a lot, they have minimal motivation to learn more," Light said. "People with more extreme anti-scientific attitudes might first need to learn about their relative ignorance on the issues before being taught specifics of established scientific knowledge."

So maybe that's part of what's going on with these folks? They overestimate their own expertise while greatly underestimating their ignorance, so when they're provided papers and other scientific material, they figure they don't even need to look at it because they think they already know more about the subject than just about anyone.

I ignore the worst of these as they seemed cursed with a heavy dose of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Yep, I think the above is a variation on that theme. I recall a time when our youth pastor was warning us about all the horrible things that Islam teaches its followers, so I asked her if she'd ever read the Quran. Nope. Had she ever spoken with a Muslim? Nope. Had she ever even met a Muslim? Nope. Nevertheless, she fully believed herself to be more knowledgeable about Islam than any Muslim.

It truly is bizarre to behold something like that.