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?

[JoeyKnothead]

As I've said before, the odds of something occurring, that has occurred, is 1.

A six has been known to occur when a dice has been thrown, therefore (according to Joey's reasoning) the probability of a six being thrown is 1.

You really need to learn what it means, the difference between the probability of a throw that ain't been yet, and the probability regarding the results of a throw that has already occurred.

Yet as most of us are aware, it is in fact 1/6 Joey, will you be retracting your claim now?

When you can offer me the courtesy of answering questions I put to you, I'll be more'n happy to respond in kind.

[Jose Fly]

This is Christian 'debate'?

No, it's not any kind of debate, Christian or otherwise. A lot of people who spend time in religious environments don't really understand what "debate" even is. They're more used to preaching.

But we see so often here, many promoters of "Truth(tm)" can have em a hard time when ya ask em to answer questions about their "Truth(tm)".

Like I said when I first came here, pretty much every "debate" with creationists is the same....creationist makes assertions/arguments, and the rest of the thread is people like us chasing them around, trying to get them to answer questions and/or support their assertions, and the creationist doing everything they can to avoid doing so.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #598]

I'm not so sure though. The "sense" in which the conservation laws are so named, is the same, we've never observed mass, charge, angular momentum disappearing or appearing, that's the only reason they are regarded as laws, there is no other reason, there's no proof for example.

I'd argue that on that basis, an empirical basis, biogenesis just as much a law as all these others.

But if any of the conservation laws changed, or the values of the key physical constants changed, there would be profound consequences for nature and the universe as we know it. If the simplest replicating "thing" could be created in a lab that met the definitions for life, that would change nothing other than demoting biogenesis from a "law" (to some) to an obselete concept just like spontaneous generation, confirming that abiogenesis is indeed possible, and creating lots of research opportunities for biologists.

[Jose Fly]

If the simplest replicating "thing" could be created in a lab that met the definitions for life...

Creationists will just shout "But it took intelligence! Checkmate atheists!"

Of course it also would require opposable thumbs, bipedalism, stereoscopic vision, tool use, etc., but um....never mind.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #604]

Creationists will just shout "But it took intelligence! Checkmate atheists!"

A checkmate on that response will come if we find microbial life (or any life) elsewhere in the universe. That may be a long time coming given how slow we can travel and how large the distances are, but if/when it does happen I expect it will throw a big wrench into many creationist's core belief systems. I'm hoping we get lucky and find unambiguous evidence for prior microbial life on Mars or Europa or something like that before I check out as a member of the life club.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #592]

Again, is there any specific post that you've made towards me that you'd like me to address in a new thread I am creating on this topic?

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #604]

Creationists will just shout "But it took intelligence! Checkmate atheists!"

A checkmate on that response will come if we find microbial life (or any life) elsewhere in the universe. That may be a long time coming given how slow we can travel and how large the distances are, but if/when it does happen I expect it will throw a big wrench into many creationist's core belief systems. I'm hoping we get lucky and find unambiguous evidence for prior microbial life on Mars or Europa or something like that before I check out as a member of the life club.

Maybe, but I expect most will just shift to either arguing that the gods created those things too, or they'll crow that science now has another thing it hasn't explained (i.e., another gap).

An intelligent alien life form however would obviously be something else entirely. I'd love to see their faces when an alien says "You guys think the entire universe was created just for you, and its fate was determined solely by your species?"

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #604]

Creationists will just shout "But it took intelligence! Checkmate atheists!"

A checkmate on that response will come if we find microbial life (or any life) elsewhere in the universe. That may be a long time coming given how slow we can travel and how large the distances are, but if/when it does happen I expect it will throw a big wrench into many creationist's core belief systems. I'm hoping we get lucky and find unambiguous evidence for prior microbial life on Mars or Europa or something like that before I check out as a member of the life club.

Maybe, but I expect most will just shift to either arguing that the gods created those things too, or they'll crow that science now has another thing it hasn't explained (i.e., another gap).

An intelligent alien life form however would obviously be something else entirely. I'd love to see their faces when an alien says "You guys think the entire universe was created just for you, and its fate was determined solely by your species?"

Zap!

(where one word can be worth it, a whole bunch of em)

[Inquirer]

You do grasp what your position amounts to here? It amounts to an admission that you have no idea what you mean when you ask me about "true" you need me to do the work for you?

I've said it before, I'll say it again...

Choose the definition you deem most apt, and answer the question...

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

Not to you, no; I doubt it's truth in your eyes.

I think this sort of dodging, or skirting around an issue is all too prevalent in the Christian community.

If one has the Truth[tm] on their side, how can a simple question cause such hemming and hawwing, and wringing of hands? I contend it's cause the god concept is designed to comfort folks on difficult, unanswerable questions.

But let's see if, now aware of all that, our Christian can muster up something approaching a direct, unambiguous answer...

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

Yyhh Tghli Tbui nttgjh Uhhu.

This is Christian 'debate'?

I remind the observer my question is in response to Inquirer asking if someone thought it was a myth. I had no qualms answering.

But we see so often here, many promoters of "Truth(tm)" can have em a hard time when ya ask em to answer questions about their "Truth(tm)".


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

I answered your question, now what's the problem?

[Inquirer]

As I've said before, the odds of something occurring, that has occurred, is 1.

A six has been known to occur when a dice has been thrown, therefore (according to Joey's reasoning) the probability of a six being thrown is 1.

You really need to learn what it means, the difference between the probability of a throw that ain't been yet, and the probability regarding the results of a throw that has already occurred.

Read what you wrote:

the odds of something occurring [future tense], that has occurred [past tense], is 1.

That's a plain statement about the probability of a future event, how do you expect to debate anybody when you make errors like that?