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]

I ask again...

Should a woman be allowed to molest her kids?

I don't think we should allow that, of course we can't stop it only react to it if and when we discover it. I take that view not based on science though.

So we see a maker shouldn't necessarily always have control over what they've made.

A parent is not a creator of life, only a container, remember humans are unable to make life from non living matter, this is a well established law - the law of biogenesis.

Science is useless for answering such questions, just look at the history if eugenics.

Or Christianity. I'm reminded of various "Christian wars" that sought to eradicate the "others".

History shows us that given enough power, many / most systems'll be corrupted.

Perhaps, any you agree that science is useless for answering such questions.

[Inquirer]

Should a woman be allowed to molest her kids?

I don't think we should allow that, of course we can't stop it only react to it if and when we discover it. I take that view not based on science though.

If your view is not based on science, on what basis did you come to that view?

It is based on the belief that we are endowed with spirit, that we are not purely mechanistic.

[William]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #65]

The robot would have no more no less than we do, it is subject to the same laws of nature,

How does this answer my question "If you created a robot as a sex-toy and also gave it free will, and it chose not to willing have sex with you, would you as the maker, still feel you have the right to do as you please with what you made?" since there are no known laws of nature preventing or compelling anyone to act in any particular way re the question?

I do not know what you mean by "free will" ...

In common Christian terms "Free Will" [as a gift to humans..so they behave other than as robots] is the implement which is used as an attempt to justify the Christian Gods actions, in relation to the supposed sinfulness of human beings.
If you are one who believes that free will doesn't exist, we can agree to refer to it simply as 'will'.

...so how could I ever construct such a machine?

You wrote;

Does a robot that I might construct and program, have any right to resist my will? Can the maker not do as he pleases with what he has made?

e.m

I was simply going along with your analogy, re your apparent belief that a creator has the right to do as he pleases with what he has made.

That is why I asked you the question;

Q: If you created a robot as a sex-toy and also gave it [free] will, and it chose not to willingly have sex with you, would you as the maker, still feel you have the right to do as you please with what you made?

Because you appear to be implying that you would have the right...

[JoeyKnothead]

A parent is not a creator of life, only a container,

Not only did you think it, you took the time to type it.

Please let June know I'm thinking of her.

remember humans are unable to make life from non living matter, this is a well established law - the law of biogenesis.

Let me guess - a god you can't show exists has this ability.

Unless you can show atoms are living matter, your claim here's not supportable.

(I've forgotten what this next bit's about, but include it for completeness...)

Science is useless for answering such questions, just look at the history if eugenics.

Or Christianity. I'm reminded of various "Christian wars" that sought to eradicate the "others".
History shows us that given enough power, many / most systems'll be corrupted.

Perhaps, [any] you agree that science is useless for answering such questions.

As well, "Cause a God I can't show exists" fails to answer such questions.

What's your point?

[Inquirer]

A parent is not a creator of life, only a container,

Not only did you think it, you took the time to type it.

Please let June know I'm thinking of her.

remember humans are unable to make life from non living matter, this is a well established law - the law of biogenesis.

Let me guess - a god you can't show exists has this ability.

Unless you can show atoms are living matter, your claim here's not supportable.

(I've forgotten what this next bit's about, but include it for completeness...)

Science is useless for answering such questions, just look at the history if eugenics.

Or Christianity. I'm reminded of various "Christian wars" that sought to eradicate the "others".
History shows us that given enough power, many / most systems'll be corrupted.

Perhaps, [any] you agree that science is useless for answering such questions.

As well, "Cause a God I can't show exists" fails to answer such questions.

What's your point?

Your mind is proof that God exists.

[JoeyKnothead]

A parent is not a creator of life, only a container,

Not only did you think it, you took the time to type it.

Please let June know I'm thinking of her.

remember humans are unable to make life from non living matter, this is a well established law - the law of biogenesis.

Let me guess - a god you can't show exists has this ability.

Unless you can show atoms are living matter, your claim here's not supportable.

(I've forgotten what this next bit's about, but include it for completeness...)

Science is useless for answering such questions, just look at the history if eugenics.

Or Christianity. I'm reminded of various "Christian wars" that sought to eradicate the "others".
History shows us that given enough power, many / most systems'll be corrupted.

Perhaps, [any] you agree that science is useless for answering such questions.

As well, "Cause a God I can't show exists" fails to answer such questions.

What's your point?

Your mind is proof that God exists.

Your mind is proof he don't.

[Inquirer]

A parent is not a creator of life, only a container,

Not only did you think it, you took the time to type it.

Please let June know I'm thinking of her.

remember humans are unable to make life from non living matter, this is a well established law - the law of biogenesis.

Let me guess - a god you can't show exists has this ability.

Unless you can show atoms are living matter, your claim here's not supportable.

(I've forgotten what this next bit's about, but include it for completeness...)

Science is useless for answering such questions, just look at the history if eugenics.

Or Christianity. I'm reminded of various "Christian wars" that sought to eradicate the "others".
History shows us that given enough power, many / most systems'll be corrupted.

Perhaps, [any] you agree that science is useless for answering such questions.

As well, "Cause a God I can't show exists" fails to answer such questions.

What's your point?

Your mind is proof that God exists.

Your mind is proof he don't.

This is a true atheist here folks - he claims there's proof God does not exist.

[Purple Knight]

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.

Don't absorb my attitude on this because my cynicism level is over 9000. But I view it as a simple matter of dominance.

The dominant opinion will always set out to squash other opinions and the minority opinion will always attempt to look as if it will tolerate the other if it becomes dominant.

But it won't.

Just look at academia today. I actually agree with the majority opinions there but they make me want to puke nonetheless because questioning is not encouraged.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
..
Your mind is proof that God exists.

Your mind is proof he don't.

This is a true atheist here folks - he claims there's proof God does not exist.

This is a true Christian here folks - he claims there's proof God exists.

The point I was making was that just asserting something - "Your mind is proof that God exists" is not showing that claim to be true.

Alas, it does seem so many Christians never got em that particular memo.

[Jose Fly]

Don't absorb my attitude on this because my cynicism level is over 9000. But I view it as a simple matter of dominance.

The dominant opinion will always set out to squash other opinions and the minority opinion will always attempt to look as if it will tolerate the other if it becomes dominant.

But it won't.

Just look at academia today. I actually agree with the majority opinions there but they make me want to puke nonetheless because questioning is not encouraged.

I agree. The evangelical church environment is extremely patriarchal, hierarchal, and authoritarian. In the comparatively limited time I've spent around academic environments I've seen the same thing (except the patriarchy), but to a lesser degree and a lot less overt (it's still there, just not explicitly stated).

Also, not everyone in the academic environment I experienced was like that. Sure, some were but they were in the minority (one prof in particular). But in the church environment, everyone knew about the hierarchy, supported it, obeyed it, and didn't question it.