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?

[Jose Fly]

That's very interesting for sure and I appreciate you sharing, but the thread is about behaviors, not beliefs.

I guess I avoided stating how what I said relates to the question.

Of course I can see thinking of life as having been created deliberately. I see it as having been created accidentally so that's not much of a leap. The idea that nobody is powerful enough to do deliberately what a bacterium did accidentally is ludicrous. Of course it might have happened.

The understanding only breaks down when they infer that I'm morally obligated to this creator. I don't see how that's possible.

Oh I think I understand their beliefs and why they hold to them pretty well. Like I described in the OP, I was immersed in all that from day one (and I'm still around it quite a bit today).

The subject of the OP is how I don't understand some of their behaviors and whether those on the "other side" of me are equally baffled by some of the things folks like me do. From what I can gather, the latter doesn't seem to be an issue, which makes me wonder if it has something to do with transparency and how the different camps respond to being questioned.

As I noted in the OP, when I posed questions in the conservative religious environment, it was seen as something to be quashed and nipped in the bud (to borrow a phrase).

That's in direct contrast to when I posed questions in the academic/scientific environment, and was encouraged to keep asking questions.

[Jose Fly]

My thoughts on this topic are starting to coalesce around something fundamental....

Upon being questioned, why do televangelists, end times preachers, faith healers, creationists, etc. seem to behave like guilty defendants on the witness stand? I'm thinking it boils down to this basic fact....they're just plain wrong but are in complete denial of it.

Televangelists are frauds who hawk fake "miracle cures" and the like, end times preachers' predictions don't come true, faith healers are frauds who don't heal anyone, and creationism (i.e., Biblical creationism/anti-evolution) isn't true.

Yet for various reasons (money, fame, self-worth, emotional well-being), those folks have a vested interest in denying this reality. Thus they're willing to engage in whatever behaviors are necessary to maintain the charade. If a televangelist has to lie about the efficacy of a product in order to keep the money rolling in, so be it. If an end-times preacher has to deny predicting something he's on record saying in order to keep his followers, so be it. If a faith healer has to question the faith of the cancer patient he couldn't heal in order to maintain his reputation, so be it. If a creationist has to deny that anyone has shown them data in order to retain his faith in scripture and the emotional security that provides, so be it.

So in all those cases it's the same underlying issue.....they're simply wrong but absolutely refuse to admit it, no matter what (likely because the stakes are so high).

Thanks everyone for your thoughts in this thread and helping me think this through. It's been very illuminating.

[William]

I'm thinking it boils down to this basic fact....they're just plain wrong but are in complete denial of it.

viewtopic.php?p=1080605#p1080605

[JoeyKnothead]

Does a robot that I might construct and program, have any right to resist my will?

Humans, least most of em, ain't robots. Such is the problem of arguments from analogies.

Can the maker not do as he pleases with what he has made?

Should a woman be allowed to molest her youngns?

[Inquirer]

Does a robot that I might construct and program, have any right to resist my will?

Humans, least most of em, ain't robots. Such is the problem of arguments from analogies.

So, what's the difference then? Seems to me (if we believe the worldview of the atheist/materialist) that mechanisms are mechanisms are mechanisms.

Machines made from biological cells are machines and machines made from transistors are machines - are you arguing here that there are two distinct kinds of machines? if so please explain, I'm interested.

Can the maker not do as he pleases with what he has made?

Should a woman be allowed to molest her youngns?

Should a female be eligible for marriage and sex as soon as she reaches reproductive age?

[JoeyKnothead]

So, what's the difference then? Seems to me (if we believe the worldview of the atheist/materialist) that mechanisms are mechanisms are mechanisms.

Machines made from biological cells are machines and machines made from transistors are machines - are you arguing here that there are two distinct kinds of machines? if so please explain, I'm interested.

Biological, and mechanical.

Can the maker not do as he pleases with what he has made?

Should a woman be allowed to molest her youngns?

Should a female be eligible for marriage and sex as soon as she reaches reproductive age?

If you want me to answer your questions, please show me the respect of answering mine -

Should a woman be allowed to molest her youngns?

[JoeyKnothead]

A late delete because it's now a dupe that failed to properly answer questions put to me.

Corrected in a later post...

[Inquirer]

So, what's the difference then? Seems to me (if we believe the worldview of the atheist/materialist) that mechanisms are mechanisms are mechanisms.

Machines made from biological cells are machines and machines made from transistors are machines - are you arguing here that there are two distinct kinds of machines? if so please explain, I'm interested.

Biological, and mechanical.

And biological machines and mechanical machines are all made from atoms and molecules which always follow the laws of nature I think you'll find, so no difference really other than how we might choose to classify things.

You wrote

Humans, least most of em, ain't robots. Such is the problem of arguments from analogies.

Your answer doesn't seem to fit the question, a bit like me saying humans aren't animals, such is the problem of arguments from analogies.

Can the maker not do as he pleases with what he has made?

Should a woman be allowed to molest her youngns?

Should a female be eligible for marriage and sex as soon as she reaches reproductive age?

If you want me to answer your questions, please show me the respect of answering mine -

Should a woman be allowed to molest her youngns?

Of course, but only after you show me a little respect and answer mine which came before yours, remember?

Can the maker not do as he pleases with what he has made?

I've mentioned this before, if people choose to answer a question of mine with a question then I will simply do the same thing.

[Bust Nak]

All I can figure is that you guys must be very emotionally and psychologically fragile, to the point where you have to do whatever you can to maintain your worldview and beliefs. The consequences of even opening the door to questioning them must be extremely severe and frightening, and so if you have to engage in some rather transparent behaviors to keep that from happening, so be it.

From my perspective, that's such an obvious defensive mechanism I'm baffled by how you don't see it.

Moderator Warning

Do not make personal comment about another poster.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JoeyKnothead]

So, what's the difference then? Seems to me (if we believe the worldview of the atheist/materialist) that mechanisms are mechanisms are mechanisms.

Machines made from biological cells are machines and machines made from transistors are machines - are you arguing here that there are two distinct kinds of machines? if so please explain, I'm interested.

Biological, and mechanical.

And biological machines and mechanical machines are all made from atoms and molecules which always follow the laws of nature I think you'll find, so no difference really other than how we might choose to classify things.

As our technology advances, we will eventually have to deal with the issue of how we wish to consider our robots, androids, and other such.

What do we do then, ask the Christians what their God says about em? How can we trust the Christian to know what their God would have us do?

Humans, least most of em, ain't robots. Such is the problem of arguments from analogies.

Your answer doesn't seem to fit the question, a bit like me saying humans aren't animals, such is the problem of arguments from analogies.

For the here and now, I don't see an issue, but as above, we'll eventually have to sort it out.

Can the maker not do as he pleases with what he has made?
...
...
Of course, but only after you show me a little respect and answer mine which before yours, remember?
...

Pologies for that, I had scrolled a bit too far when I responded.

Can the maker not do as he pleases with what he has made?

Our problem here is asking to what maker do we refer? Where the Christian proposes their maker, as according to Christians, wants us to act in Christian ways, we should expect the Christian to show they speak truth.

What's the Christian God's opinion on gay robots? Are we supposed to stone them too? What about young robots, can we bash them against the rocks? Did Jesus die and get rose up to absolve robots of their sin?

How could we ever know?

I've mentioned this before, if people choose to answer a question of mine with a question then I will simply do the same thing.

I hear ya, and find it aggravating myself. All the more embarrassing for me to've done it.

So now that we've cleared that up...

Should a woman be able to molest her kids?