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]

[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.

This doesn't help you, whatever is meant by "profound" is immaterial, the conservation laws are assumptions based on past observations, they cannot be proven true, they are axiomatic.

[JoeyKnothead]

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?

I feel confident the observer'll see the problem of when it comes to trying to get a direct, straightforward answer out of the proponents of "Truth(tm)".

[William]

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?

Okay - so let me see if I can work out what it may mean - at least from that dark level of the subconscious...

Yyhh Tghli Tbui nttgjh Uhhu. = 311

On my N2N I have under the same value...
re Q: "Do you think the resurrection of Christ described in the New Testament is truth?"
Learn to trust the process = 311
The eyes of one's understanding = 311
We danced as evening sang their song = 311
Let the hand of GOD work for you = 311
_________________________________
Is there a connection which can help us to understand the nature of the inquirer that might help us solve the problem re an answer to the question⸘

Trademark Truth = 178
Ghost In The Machine = 178
The Devil Ye Know = 178
Emergent Theory = 178

[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?

I feel confident the observer'll see the problem of when it comes to trying to get a direct, straightforward answer out of the proponents of "Truth(tm)".

So you can't make sense of my answer? you need me to explain it?

Perhaps now you can see how the question itself made no sense, yet you refused to explain it, I asked nicely several times but you couldn't be bothered to explain.

How can I discuss truth with people who refuse to explain what it is they seek?

[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.

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?

Cause I figure folks have em a dictionary, and know how to use it.

So let's fix this for them that don't...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/

When discussing the probability of something that has occurred, that probability is 1. Since that probability is 1, as we look into the past, knowing it has occurred, we can also say that probability is 1.

We can also consider those probabilities where an event hasn't occurred, and then the numbers get all over the map.

But the fact remains, in the discussion of the "improbable odds of the universe / life on earth", we see there sits the universe, and there sits life on earth. We're therefore compelled to give that probability a 1 on each individual account, and even if we bunch em both together.

As well, we can give the probability of some folks trying to deny this fact a 1 as well, and don't that beat all.

[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?

Cause I figure folks have em a dictionary, and know how to use it.

So let's fix this for them that don't...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/

When discussing the probability of something that has occurred, that probability is 1. Since that probability is 1, as we look into the past, knowing it has occurred, we can also say that probability is 1.

Joey, a past event has also not occurred too, why are you excluding the times that it didn't occur?

It rained yesterday here, so the probability of it raining was 1? really? despite the fact it did not rain each day of the preceding 4 months?

Probability is nothing to do with whether some event will or will not occur, it is about how many times it will occur given how many times it could have occurred.

But no worries, you are not the only person here I've had to explain this kind of thing to. There are quite a few atheists who argue that the probability of God existing is very small, I've heard Dawkins say that too, it betrays a huge misunderstanding about what probability means, but such is the world of pop-science.

[Jose Fly]

I've been doing a bit of reading and, on the topic of the thread, I've settled on a few things.

First, I do think there is something to the inverse relationship between religiosity and intelligence. While this is merely a tendency and not an absolute rule, I think it does explain some of the behaviors of some of the creationists (mostly of the fundamentalist type) I've interacted with.

Second, there's been some research showing that humans tend to employ one of two basic types of thinking, analytical thinking and intuitive thinking (sometimes referred to as "thinking" and "feeling"). Folks who utilize analytical thinking more tend to have better critical thinking skills and be less religious than those who utilize intuitive thinking more. Some research has also shown that if you trigger intuitive thinkers to think more analytically, some of them show decreased tendency to believe in gods (and vice versa, where triggering intuitive thinking in typical analytical thinkers increases their tendency to believe in gods). So differences in thinking types also explain much of what I've seen in these "debates".

Third, IMO the above two factors (intelligence, critical thinking) are highly discouraged in some religious environments. For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses discourage (but don't prohibit) their members from pursuing higher education. The church I attended as a youth often chastised me for "asking too many questions" and "not having faith", which in hindsight I see as attempts to suppress my critical thinking instincts. In some Protestant denominations, women are either prohibited or highly discouraged from pursuing education beyond high school (or in some cases, beyond 8th grade).

Put together, all of this info has helped me understand many of the behaviors I've seen from creationists over the years, as well as why in so many of the debates and discussions the two sides seem to be completely talking past each other. Just as I'm baffled at some folks' inability to think critically, I'm sure some religious folks are just as baffled by my cold and detached approach to things. I have trouble relating to their intuitive way of thinking, and they have trouble relating to my analytical way of thinking.

As one of my Christian friends said to me after I explained why I wasn't a Christian, "You sure do think like a scientist". In hindsight, his statement had a lot more meaning behind it than I appreciated at the time.

[JoeyKnothead]

Snipping for breviation...

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

Yyhh Tghli Tbui nttgjh Uhhu.

This is Christian 'debate'?

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

I feel confident the observer'll see the problem of when it comes to trying to get a direct, straightforward answer out of the proponents of "Truth(tm)".

So you can't make sense of my answer? you need me to explain it?

Perhaps now you can see how the question itself made no sense, yet you refused to explain it, I asked nicely several times but you couldn't be bothered to explain.

How can I discuss truth with people who refuse to explain what it is they seek?

I'm confident the observer'll see you'll offer any excuse to avoid the ramifications of whatever your answer might be.

From presenting a demand I define a commonly understood word - truth - and being told to pick you definition you're proud of...

From complaining that folks might - gasp - debate your answer...

On up to creating an entire new language known only to you...

This ladies and gentlemen, is what we can expect from some, to many proponents of "Truth(tm)".

And don't it just rip up the mater patch, all this on a site dedicated to debating the merits of "Truth(tm)".

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

The observer's left to ponder why such a straightforward question'd cause a Christian so much fuss.

[Inquirer]

Snipping for breviation...

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

Yyhh Tghli Tbui nttgjh Uhhu.

This is Christian 'debate'?

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

I feel confident the observer'll see the problem of when it comes to trying to get a direct, straightforward answer out of the proponents of "Truth(tm)".

So you can't make sense of my answer? you need me to explain it?

Perhaps now you can see how the question itself made no sense, yet you refused to explain it, I asked nicely several times but you couldn't be bothered to explain.

How can I discuss truth with people who refuse to explain what it is they seek?

I'm confident the observer'll see you'll offer any excuse to avoid the ramifications of whatever your answer might be.

From presenting a demand I define a commonly understood word - truth - and being told to pick you definition you're proud of...

From complaining that folks might - gasp - debate your answer...

On up to creating an entire new language known only to you...

This ladies and gentlemen, is what we can expect from some, to many proponents of "Truth(tm)".

And don't it just rip up the mater patch, all this on a site dedicated to debating the merits of "Truth(tm)".

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

The observer's left to ponder why such a straightforward question'd cause a Christian so much fuss.

The answer depends on how you define truth Joey, since you don't seem to know what you mean, we are at an impasse, yet you keep asking the same question over and over, here consider this quote (supposedly from Einstein, but I don't think it is)

~ "The definition of a fool is someone who does the same thing over and over again expecting different results" ~

[JoeyKnothead]

Joey, a past event has also not occurred too, why are you excluding the times that it didn't occur?

Cause a past event that has not occurred is, by definition, not an event.

It rained yesterday here, so the probability of it raining was 1? really? despite the fact it did not rain each day of the preceding 4 months?

I'm not confident I can believe you when you say it rained in your parts. I'd need more confirmation other'n just you saying it did.

Probability is nothing to do with whether some event will or will not occur, it is about how many times it will occur given how many times it could have occurred.

And when it has occurred, that probability is 1.

But no worries, you are not the only person here I've had to explain this kind of thing to. There are quite a few atheists who argue that the probability of God existing is very small, I've heard Dawkins say that too, it betrays a huge misunderstanding about what probability means, but such is the world of pop-science.

When I argue the probability of a god existing being "very small", then we can fuss on that.

Otherwise, I didn't order the red herring.