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?
Do you understand those on the other side?
Moderator: Moderators
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Do you understand those on the other side?
Post #291Which particular black disc are you hoping to fetch?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Do you understand those on the other side?
Post #292viewtopic.php?p=1085593#p1085593
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: Do you understand those on the other side?
Post #293Wow. I posted a math website for you. Did you forget?
What th......?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.
You honestly think mutation is like pulling discs out of a bag that has only black discs? You think mutations are limited to only one possible outcome? I guess you do....more's the pity.
Right now I'm trying to figure out if you simply do not get this, are just desperate to avoid admitting even the smallest error, or are trolling.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Do you understand those on the other side?
Post #294I'd say your test rig might need it a looking after, but...
In a random system, results such as you present ain't impossible.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14192
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: Do you understand those on the other side?
Post #295A display of intelligence is, in and of itself, not necessarily any better than learning how to connect with intuition specifically and the mind constructively.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 1:22 pmThis 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.William wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 5:06 pm 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.
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.
Its uses are primarily to do with working out the physical aspects of human experience, but even in working those things out, use of the knowledge and power gained through intelligence does not guarantee any better outcome than religiosity has delivered.
Knowing this, even intuitively, allowed me to invest my intelligence over and above theistic and atheistic positions.
One key observation made was to acknowledge that giving up theistic religiosity didn't necessitate in my therefore having to change to atheism. What I have observed since, is that the tendency for folk to give up the theist or atheist position and jumping to the other side is the result of them not using their intelligence to see that those were not the only options/choices available to them.
I am unsure/undecided as to whether this is a tactic employed by both sides in order to support the illusion that both sides are relevant, with the one side [take your pick] being 'most relevant' - or whether it is a simply oversight [re intelligence] on the part of both sides that they are unable to acknowledge the relevancy of not taking sides.
Perhaps not understanding the other side is a reflection of not understanding ones own side, be that theism or atheism.
As I said - there appear to be different levels of intelligence...I was not implying by that, that those levels are restricted to atheist/theist positions...with the atheists being 'the most' intelligent.
My intuition tells me it is not really the intelligence volume [how much or how little] but how the intelligence is used, which determines outcomes and in either case, theist or atheist based intelligence has not proved the one is better than the other but seems to be showing that neither have a great history of healthy tells to show.
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Do you understand those on the other side?
Post #296Well there's your problem right there. You done confused his black bag, with your bag of black discs.Inquirer wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 1:59 pmviewtopic.php?p=1085593#p1085593
See, a bag is something ya might put discs in, and discs're something ya might put in a bag.
The randomness involved here is in how the theist either doesn't understand, or just maybe wants to reframe another's argument, so he thinks it fits his argument better, and how random'll be, to what degree they change it.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Do you understand those on the other side?
Post #297Is the color of disc drawn from a bag of black discs random or not? Do you understand the question even? If so why are you struggling to answer it?Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 2:02 pmWow. I posted a math website for you. Did you forget?
What th......?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.
You honestly think mutation is like pulling discs out of a bag that has only black discs? You think mutations are limited to only one possible outcome? I guess you do....more's the pity.
Right now I'm trying to figure out if you simply do not get this, are just desperate to avoid admitting even the smallest error, or are trolling.
Perhaps you want to use technical terms rhetorically, throwing "random" and "probable" around as you see fit without regard to their academic meaning in science or mathematics, is that it?
And I must remind you that the bag and discs analogy is your own analogy, you introduced it during a discussion about random mutations! You want to introduce abysmal analogies and then blame me for them?
I never compared random genetic mutations to a bag of discs YOU DID when you wrote:
You introduced this not me, you made absurd claims about randomness and now you have the audacity to phrase this as if I have done something wrong by pointing out your errors?I have a black bag with colored discs in it. I reach into the bag and pull out discs one at a time. The color of disc I pull out is random. Each time I pull one out, if it is red I keep it and if it's any other color I put it back in the bag. After 15 minutes I have all red discs.
Last edited by Inquirer on Fri Jul 22, 2022 2:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: Do you understand those on the other side?
Post #298I generally agree, although I'm not so sure about outcomes religiosity has delivered. But I suppose that depends on what one values.William wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 2:09 pm A display of intelligence is, in and of itself, not necessarily any better than learning how to connect with intuition specifically and the mind constructively.
Its uses are primarily to do with working out the physical aspects of human experience, but even in working those things out, use of the knowledge and power gained through intelligence does not guarantee any better outcome than religiosity has delivered.
I honestly don't have any interest in the theism v. atheism battles.Knowing this, even intuitively, allowed me to invest my intelligence over and above theistic and atheistic positions.
One key observation made was to acknowledge that giving up theistic religiosity didn't necessitate in my therefore having to change to atheism. What I have observed since, is that the tendency for folk to give up the theist or atheist position and jumping to the other side is the result of them not using their intelligence to see that those were not the only options/choices available to them.
I am unsure/undecided as to whether this is a tactic employed by both sides in order to support the illusion that both sides are relevant, with the one side [take your pick] being 'most relevant' - or whether it is a simply oversight [re intelligence] on the part of both sides that they are unable to acknowledge the relevancy of not taking sides.
Perhaps not understanding the other side is a reflection of not understanding ones own side, be that theism or atheism.
Very much so. I made sure both of my kids spent time working in some sort of customer service job, specifically so they could see what the "general public" is like. Both came away realizing that there are some people out there who simply aren't all that bright. I also made sure they understood that in many cases, it's not the person's fault and they're doing the best they can.As I said - there appear to be different levels of intelligence.
Well the data does show that the non-religious tend to be more intelligent than the religious.I was not implying by that, that those levels are restricted to atheist/theist positions...with the atheists being 'the most' intelligent.
I don't know what "theist or atheist based intelligence" refers to, and if I think about it, I'm not sure either is even a real thing. One's intelligence isn't "based in" one's belief in gods, and in fact it may be the reverse.My intuition tells me it is not really the intelligence volume [how much or how little] but how the intelligence is used, which determines outcomes and in either case, theist or atheist based intelligence has not proved the one is better than the other but seems to be showing that neither have a great history of healthy tells to show.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: Do you understand those on the other side?
Post #299A bag of all black discs is your own invention and is not the scenario I posed, nor does it relate at all to evolution.
Sigh.....Perhaps you want to use technical terms rhetorically, throwing "random" and "probable" around as you see fit without regard to their meaning in science or mathematics, is that it?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... obability/
Mathematicians measure probability by counting and using some very basic math, like addition and division. For example, you can add up the number of spades in a complete deck (13) and divide this by the total number of cards in the deck (52) to get the probability of randomly drawing a spade: 13 in 52, or 25 percent. If you were investigating red cards, kings or the queen of hearts, the odds of randomly drawing one of these from a complete deck are 50 percent (26 in 52); about 7.7 percent (four in 52); or about 1.9 percent (one in 52), respectively.
But what does Scientific American know? We should all just bow to your expertise, right?
Oh come on....you can't be serious. This is one of the dumbest conversations I've had in a very long time.And I must remind you that the bag and discs analogy is your own analogy, you introduced it during a discussion about random mutations! You want to introduce abysmal analogies and then blame me for them?
I never compared random genetic mutations to a bag of discs YOU DID when you wrote:
You introduced this not me, you made absurd claims about randomness and now you have the audacity to phrase this as if I have done something wrong by pointing out your errors?I have a black bag with colored discs in it. I reach into the bag and pull out discs one at a time. The color of disc I pull out is random. Each time I pull one out, if it is red I keep it and if it's any other color I put it back in the bag. After 15 minutes I have all red discs.
You truly don't understand the statistical difference between drawing from a bag of colored discs and a bag of all black discs? Is that really beyond you?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14192
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: Do you understand those on the other side?
Post #300[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #294]
Random OR Mindless, for that matter.
I do, however, lean toward the idea that it is not random OR mindless based upon my playfulness with it, and its apparent response to that...it can't be all in my head unless everything that exists is all in my head...which would mean that my head is a lot bigger than I think it is...
I haven't decided whether the system is random or just appears that way because of our position within it...In a random system, results such as you present ain't impossible.
Random OR Mindless, for that matter.
I do, however, lean toward the idea that it is not random OR mindless based upon my playfulness with it, and its apparent response to that...it can't be all in my head unless everything that exists is all in my head...which would mean that my head is a lot bigger than I think it is...