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]

Booy

The division is plain enough. Metaphore is useful, even if it doesn't explain the complete situation...The Wall exists and I walk it, due to my world view....not saying that there are no pathways or hand and foot holds but the walls are definitely there even that they manifest as different objects in this reality...

The "wall" is imaginary, a delusion. Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Maxwell, Behe and countless others had no difficulty with these ideas about reality, coexisting, there was no "either or" false dichotomy in their thinking. It is a fabrication that originates in militant atheism, attempting to legitimize atheism and delegitimize theism yet ignoring centuries of intellectual development where science and theism coexisted.

This belief that we must "take sides" is divisive, creating tension and conflict where none exists. If you see it as a choice then that's your call but its a waste of time and achieves nothing other than endless vacuous bickering.

[William]

endless vacuous bickering = 258
The design of the universe
Intelligence with Wisdom
The one God with many names
Events connected by meaning

[Clownboat]

I am not aware of what principles I'm applying for determining the truth of the moon landing or 911.

That's where we differ then, I respectfully suggest you put some effort into this area.

You want me to put in effort for determining the principles I use for accepting the truth of the moon landing and 9/11?

I do not share this level of self worth that you seem to have placed upon yourself. I'll put in my effort where I see fit, not where you suggest. Currently, I'm trying to better understand those on the religious side, not the moon landing.

Therefore the motive is not to seek some "truth" with an open mind but simply to attack the resurrection claim by any and all means available, how can such an endeavor be regarded as impartial?

Spoken like someone defending a flat earth belief. Ask me to defend the attacks on the Twin Towers and see if I attack your motives or see if I can defend my belief in the truth of the attacks.

I assume you quote mine'd this out because you realize I can defend the historical event that was the attack on the Twin Towers, unlike what can be done for most claims in religious texts.

Readers:
Inquirer = Copy/past: I've asked Joey, in fact several people, perhaps I asked you, for an example of an event from ancient history that you regard as "true" yet no answer has been forthcoming, I must have asked this over several months now.

It was unanswered because it was silly to ask. Now that I answered it, just to appease Inquirer, it's no longer worthy to discuss. Odd huh?

You claim that "911" is truth and that the "moon landing" is truth yet you have no idea how you came to that conclusion? doesn't that make the claim nothing more than a belief?

Well if asserting some claim is true with no regard to how we establish that truth, I too can say that the resurrection story in the NT is true and leave it at that!

Copy/paste: Ask me to defend the attacks on the Twin Towers and see if I attack your motives or see if I can defend my belief in the truth of the attacks.
Copy/paste: I assume you quote mine'd this out because you realize I can defend the historical event that was the attack on the Twin Towers, unlike what can be done for most claims in religious texts.

[Inquirer]

I am not aware of what principles I'm applying for determining the truth of the moon landing or 911.

That's where we differ then, I respectfully suggest you put some effort into this area.

You want me to put in effort for determining the principles I use for accepting the truth of the moon landing and 9/11?

I do not share this level of self worth that you seem to have placed upon yourself. I'll put in my effort where I see fit, not where you suggest. Currently, I'm trying to better understand those on the religious side, not the moon landing.

Therefore the motive is not to seek some "truth" with an open mind but simply to attack the resurrection claim by any and all means available, how can such an endeavor be regarded as impartial?

Spoken like someone defending a flat earth belief. Ask me to defend the attacks on the Twin Towers and see if I attack your motives or see if I can defend my belief in the truth of the attacks.

I assume you quote mine'd this out because you realize I can defend the historical event that was the attack on the Twin Towers, unlike what can be done for most claims in religious texts.

Readers:
Inquirer = Copy/past: I've asked Joey, in fact several people, perhaps I asked you, for an example of an event from ancient history that you regard as "true" yet no answer has been forthcoming, I must have asked this over several months now.

It was unanswered because it was silly to ask. Now that I answered it, just to appease Inquirer, it's no longer worthy to discuss. Odd huh?

You claim that "911" is truth and that the "moon landing" is truth yet you have no idea how you came to that conclusion? doesn't that make the claim nothing more than a belief?

Well if asserting some claim is true with no regard to how we establish that truth, I too can say that the resurrection story in the NT is true and leave it at that!

Copy/paste: Ask me to defend the attacks on the Twin Towers and see if I attack your motives or see if I can defend my belief in the truth of the attacks.
Copy/paste: I assume you quote mine'd this out because you realize I can defend the historical event that was the attack on the Twin Towers, unlike what can be done for most claims in religious texts.

Oh dear, I never ever said you were incapable of defending your beliefs, I just asked what is the process you use to establish that some claim about the past is true or not.

[William]

[Inquirer]

Appearances are often deceptive, you see two sides whereas I see only one.

[Clownboat]

Oh dear, I never ever said you were incapable of defending your beliefs

Of course you wouldn't as I can defend my beliefs. That would be foolish to say.

I just asked what is the process you use to establish that some claim about the past is true or not.

Yup, you asked that.

Copy/paste with one addition: Ask me to defend the attacks on the Twin Towers and see if I attack your motives (remember saying this:"the motive is not to seek some "truth" with an open mind but simply to attack the resurrection claim by any and all means available") or see if I can defend my belief in the truth of the attacks.
Copy/paste: I assume you quote mine'd this out because you realize I can defend the historical event that was the attack on the Twin Towers, unlike what can be done for most claims in religious texts.

[William]

I am speaking of the edge which provides a footing and why I call it "Wall Walking" has to do with the "endless vacuous bickering" which acts as a looping device going nowhere practical, as far as I can tell from Walking the Edge of it.

The design of the universe
Requires
Intelligence with Wisdom
Recognizes
The One GOD with many names
Remembering
Events connected by meaning

viewtopic.php?p=1087450#p1087450



Walls are just things designed to separate and from my vantage, I see no practical reason for why this wall exists. I only know that it does exist due to those who contribute to the "endless vacuous bickering" represented as the stone pieces...from another vantage I suspect that the wall looks safe and gives some sense of well-being to those contributing in its continued construction...

...and now to the weather...

999# ʇsoԀ [Appearances are often deceptive]

[JoeyKnothead]

Appearances are often deceptive, you see two sides whereas I see only one.

Inside, meet outside.

Outside, meet inside.

[Inquirer]

Appearances are often deceptive, you see two sides whereas I see only one.

Inside, meet outside.

Outside, meet inside.

This reminds me of "Tardis Theory" a light hearted yet mathematically sound idea that I had in my twenties when studying general relativity, recall Dr. Who's Tardis? appeared small from the outside yet huge once inside - possible? could it happen? If you only knew !