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?

[Diogenes]

This is not true, not based on the OP anyway. Jose goes on to complain about "creationists" in the general sense:

In the years that I've been debating creationists...

and

can you relate to the creationists' way of thinking and behaviors?

This is unfair and perhaps disingenuous. Obviously at a broader level most Christians believe in some aspect of a creating God. But the OP specifically refers to "young-earth creationism."
Furthermore, I did the same thing, and clearly made that and other distinctions. I choose to assume you have not read the material carefully, rather than make darker conclusions. In any event, one of my reactions to persistent careless reading is to stop responding at all.

[JoeyKnothead]

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?

[Inquirer]

This is not true, not based on the OP anyway. Jose goes on to complain about "creationists" in the general sense:

In the years that I've been debating creationists...

and

can you relate to the creationists' way of thinking and behaviors?

This is unfair and perhaps disingenuous. Obviously at a broader level most Christians believe in some aspect of a creating God. But the OP specifically refers to "young-earth creationism."
Furthermore, I did the same thing, and clearly made that and other distinctions. I choose to assume you have not read the material carefully, rather than make darker conclusions. In any event, one of my reactions to persistent careless reading is to stop responding at all.

Did I misquote? I think not, and what of careless writing? but speaking of careless reading, my remarks specifically refer to the OP not your post.

[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?

[William]

William: Most recently our current overall impression of it through scientific means, ... enables us to verify that we literally know so little that we should not allow ourself to believe we know so much, whatever direction our influences are coming from.[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #347]

Which is why I don't refer to it as a "creation".

Which is why I don't refer to it as either "created" or "not created" - which is different to how most folk who believe in evolution prefer to see it as simply ..."non-created"
I have just been in discussion about this very subject ...
viewtopic.php?p=1085784#p1085784

I see no fists flying, only vigorous debate.

["Fisticuffs" was used symbolically - 'debate' is the online equivalent - words are only a rearranged other way of saying "sword" which is what fists hold...]

[JoeyKnothead]

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?

I answered your question, please have the courtesy to answer mine...

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

[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?

I answered your question, please have the courtesy to answer mine...

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

I can't answer it as written, that's why I asked what is truth, I need clarification, until you tell me what you understand by the term how can I answer your question...

You used the term "literal truth" I asked what you meant but you did not tell me, instead you changed the question to asking about simply "truth" I again asked what you mean and you haven't told me yet.

Terms like "truth" get used all the time yet few people every really take the time to think about what it really means.

There are different kinds of truth Joey, which type are you asking me about with respect to the resurrection? life is a journey, where is yours taking you?

[JoeyKnothead]

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?

I answered your question, please have the courtesy to answer mine...

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

I can't answer it, that's why I asked what is truth, I need clarification, until you tell me what you understand by the term how can I answer your question...

You used the term "literal truth" I asked what you meant and did not tell me, instead you changed the question to asking about simply "truth" I asked what you mean and you haven't told me yet.

Terms like "truth" get used all the time yet few people every really take the time to think about what it really means.

There are different kinds of truth Joey, which type are you asking me about with respect to the resurrection?

Let the record reflect that Inquirer struggles to understand what is meant by such a commonly understood word as truth...

And let that fact guide all y'all when considering what it is he has to allow.

But since it's a day ending in y, let's amuse ourselves with his obvious diversionary tactic...

What is truth?

If you've gone this far in your alleged debate career, and hafta ask that question, well how bout that.

does it differ from literal truth?

Yes. It allows for a great diversion when folks wanna avoid answering questions put to em.

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

The question you asked was...

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

To which, I responded to the effect of "Yes, I think that".

That does NOT establish a claim, but answers a question honestly and sincerely.

Now, since you so obviously struggle with words of more'n a letter or two...

"Honestly" means I wasn't lying when I said I thunk it,

and "sincerely" means, "Now there we go, I answered your question and how we all might slip and think you ain't neither honest, nor sincere enough to answer questions put to you".

And, to finish this charade of yours...

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?

I used me the premise that you asked a question on what one thought, and, in trying to answer honest and sincere, I get me this rigamarole outta you for my troubles.

Now, there's you a whole bunch more questions I've answered, let's see if you can rustle up you the integrity to answer one put to you...

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

[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?

I answered your question, please have the courtesy to answer mine...

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

I can't answer it, that's why I asked what is truth, I need clarification, until you tell me what you understand by the term how can I answer your question...

You used the term "literal truth" I asked what you meant and did not tell me, instead you changed the question to asking about simply "truth" I asked what you mean and you haven't told me yet.

Terms like "truth" get used all the time yet few people every really take the time to think about what it really means.

There are different kinds of truth Joey, which type are you asking me about with respect to the resurrection?

Let the record reflect that Inquirer struggles to understand what is meant by such a commonly understood word as truth...

And let that fact guide all y'all when considering what it is he has to allow.

But since it's a day ending in y, let's amuse ourselves with his obvious diversionary tactic...

What is truth?

If you've gone this far in your alleged debate career, and hafta ask that question, well how bout that.

does it differ from literal truth?

Yes. It allows for a great diversion when folks wanna avoid answering questions put to em.

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

The question you asked was...

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

To which, I responded to the effect of "Yes, I think that".

That does NOT establish a claim, but answers a question honestly and sincerely.

Now, since you so obviously struggle with words of more'n a letter or two...

"Honestly" means I wasn't lying when I said I thunk it,

and "sincerely" means, "Now there we go, I answered your question and how we all might slip and think you ain't neither honest, nor sincere enough to answer questions put to you".

And, to finish this charade of yours...

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?

I used me the premise that you asked a question on what one thought, and, in trying to answer honest and sincere, I get me this rigamarole outta you for my troubles.

Now, there's you a whole bunch more questions I've answered, let's see if you can rustle up you the integrity to answer one put to you...

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

I can't answer it as written, that's why I asked what is truth, I need clarification, until you tell me what you understand by the term how can I answer your question...

You say

such a commonly understood word

but it is a misunderstood word, this is clear from your reaction.

You used the term "literal truth" I asked what you meant but you did not tell me, instead you changed the question to asking about simply "truth" I again asked what you mean and you haven't told me yet.

Terms like "truth" get used all the time yet few people every really take the time to think about what it really means.

There are different kinds of truth Joey, ask a Judge or a lawyer if you don't believe this; which type are you asking me about with respect to the resurrection? life is a journey, where is yours taking you? round and round in circles perhaps?

If you know what you mean by "truth" then simply tell me, if you do not then this conversation can serve no purpose, you'll have to find someone else to insult, I'm done.

[JoeyKnothead]

There are different kinds of truth Joey, ask a Judge or a lawyer if you don't believe this; which type are you asking me about with respect to the resurrection? life is a journey, where is yours taking you? round and round in circles perhaps?

If you know what you mean by "truth" then simply tell me, if you do not then this conversation can serve no purpose, you'll have to find someone else to insult, I'm done.

Let's not confuse our Christian by asking anything ever again that contains it the word "truth" in it...

It's just too confusing a word for 'im.

To those interested in knowing how our Christian may have answered, I pologize most sincerely for phrasing my question with so much grease.

Grease is the stuff ya use to make something slippery.

Slippery's when ya can't get holt to something.

Anyone else confounded by my eighth grade cabulary?