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?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #407]

The universe and laws of nature is empirical evidence, at least last time I looked.

Who said otherwise? The issue is evidence for the existence of god(s). Stating that the universe and laws of nature are empirical evidence is just a comment ... it does nothing to relate that fact to evidence for the existence of gods. Have you got anything to relate the existence of the universe and laws of nature to evidence for the existence of god(s)? If so, present it.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #410]

Yes but "evidence" is also interpreted ...

Right, but in real science it is interpreted by anyone and everyone who wants to once it is published for all to see. The cold fusion guys from Utah (Fleischmann and Pons) interpreted their lab data to be evidence for cold fusion, but the rest of the science community very quickly tried to repeat their experiment and confirm their interpretation and could not. It was quickly rejected as a correct interpretation although the original researchers still were convinced.

Evolution, or any other hypothesis, is subject to the same scrutiny and only becomes scientific consensus (or theory) when it has survived extensive attacks over long periods of time and still holds up to the scrutiny. Interpretations of the evidence that don't align with a long-established consensus have a very high hurdle to clear to change the consensus, specifically because the consensus was built up over long periods of time (150+ years in the case of evolution) and so is very strongly supported by evidence and analysis. Challenges to evolution have not cleared this hurdle (not even close), so have not changed the consensus.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #407]

The universe and laws of nature is empirical evidence, at least last time I looked.

Who said otherwise? The issue is evidence for the existence of god(s). Stating that the universe and laws of nature are empirical evidence is just a comment ... it does nothing to relate that fact to evidence for the existence of gods. Have you got anything to relate the existence of the universe and laws of nature to evidence for the existence of god(s)? If so, present it.

The universe is evidence for God, what else could it possibly be evidence of? why do you think it isn't? scientism? your devotion to scientism perhaps?

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #410]

Yes but "evidence" is also interpreted ...

Right, but in real science it is interpreted by anyone and everyone who wants to once it is published for all to see. The cold fusion guys from Utah (Fleischmann and Pons) interpreted their lab data to be evidence for cold fusion, but the rest of the science community very quickly tried to repeat their experiment and confirm their interpretation and could not. It was quickly rejected as a correct interpretation although the original researchers still were convinced.

Evolution, or any other hypothesis, is subject to the same scrutiny and only becomes scientific consensus (or theory) when it has survived extensive attacks over long periods of time and still holds up to the scrutiny. Interpretations of the evidence that don't align with a long-established consensus have a very high hurdle to clear to change the consensus, specifically because the consensus was built up over long periods of time (150+ years in the case of evolution) and so is very strongly supported by evidence and analysis. Challenges to evolution have not cleared this hurdle (not even close), so have not changed the consensus.

That cold fusion results could not be replicated does not prove that those results were wrong, yes we can assume that nature is invariant but that's an assumption, for all you know some hitherto unknown agency was at play during Pons and Fleischmann's testing that was absent in later attempts to replicate them. You do not know, they do not know, this is something I point out regularly, that science is littered with assumptions and this is one.

Saying there is consensus among evolutionists is like saying all tall people are tall, it is without epistemological value.

[otseng]

brain washed evolution devotees can only see what the so desperately want to see.

Moderator Comment

Please debate without making personal assessments of others.

Please review the Rules.



______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #413]

The universe is evidence for God, what else could it possibly be evidence of?

Itself. What is Mt. Everest evidence of, or the Pacific ocean? The universe is no more evidence for god(s) than it is evidence for anything else you could dream up and declare a relationship to. The universe is evidence that all of the things we can observe in it exist, and observations suggest many more things that exist that we don't yet understand like dark matter and dark energy. But inferring that a god exists from observations of the universe is an opinion ... it does not follow from observations of the universe that gods must exist.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #414]

That cold fusion results could not be replicated does not prove that those results were wrong, yes we can assume that nature is invariant but that's an assumption, for all you know some hitherto unknown agency was at play during Pons and Fleischmann's testing that was absent in later attempts to replicate them. You do not know, they do not know, this is something I point out regularly, that science is littered with assumptions and this is one.

It had nothing to do with any assumptions about nature being invariant. The mechanism they provided for the excess heat was shown to be wrong, and the claim of seeing certain nuclear reaction byproducts (neutrons and tritium) was also admitted to be incorrect even by Pons and Fleischmann. Steven E. Koonin of Caltech called the Utah report a result of "the incompetence and delusion of Pons and Fleischmann."

The whole thing was a joke, but the fact that no one could reproduce the results is what relegated it to the dust bin, and should have. Reproducibility is a crucial part of experimental science, but you're apparently suggesting it isn't and does not invalidate their results because there may have been some hitherto unknown agency at play (seriously?). Do you think articles published in the Journal of Irreproducible Results should be taken seriously?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_o ... le_Results

I once (in graduate school) submitted a paper to this "journal" because of erratic results in an optogalvanic experiment, but it was rejected because the results were not sufficiently irreproducible (and with a funny letter from the Editor).

Saying there is consensus among evolutionists is like saying all tall people are tall, it is without epistemological value.

Not if you completely missed the point, which you obviously did. The point was that the consensus on evolution was built up over a very long process of testing the hypothesis experimentally and beating back challenges from those who attacked it. There is consensus because of that process. I did not simply state that there is a consensus among evolutionists, which is obvious (read more carefully).

[brunumb]

So is mine - which kind of truth - that's a very simple question.

Lets assume I defend the resurrection from the perspective of historic truth and then Joey decides to attack my defense on the basis of scientific truth?

This makes no sense. The truth lies in the claim, not how it is assessed. The resurrection either occurred or it didn't. Which one is the truth?

[Tcg]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #413]

The universe is evidence for God, what else could it possibly be evidence of?

Itself. What is Mt. Everest evidence of, or the Pacific ocean? The universe is no more evidence for god(s) than it is evidence for anything else you could dream up and declare a relationship to. The universe is evidence that all of the things we can observe in it exist, and observations suggest many more things that exist that we don't yet understand like dark matter and dark energy. But inferring that a god exists from observations of the universe is an opinion ... it does not follow from observations of the universe that gods must exist.

Right. And if we are to follow the faulty line of reasoning that the universe is evidence of God, we'd then need to ask what God is evidence of. The answer, again if following this faulty line of reasoning, would be the thing that created God. As we see time after time, we end up with a need for an endless stream of creators. Each being more complex than the previous.

No, as you have stated, the universe is evidence of the universe. We can detect the universe directly, we can interact with it, in a certain sense we are part of it. God? Nowhere to be found.


Tcg

[JoeyKnothead]

...
Science tells us we are talking about a human life, and yet the left has no problem saying one human can decide/determine if another innocent human gets to live or die.

Women die during pregnancy, childbirth, and soon after. But there's some who think they have a right to ensure she's not allowed to make life saving medical decisions.

Now, of course I can understand their emotion based argument of how difficult and hard an unplanned pregnancy might be, but to justify such a ‘might makes right’ conclusion is something I cannot relate to.

Why not, when the might of Christians is used to prevent a woman from making life saving decisions for herself?

And it seems to me you are directing your, “I don’t understand them” toward fundamentalist Christians. I agree with almost everything you said regarding how can those Christians believe what they believe when it is shown science/reality contradicts their view.

What part of science supports there being a god?

I would describe myself as a conservative Catholic Christian, but do not get when so many Christians fall for end time prophesies or think evolution is somehow contrary to Christian belief. Or those Christians who refuse medical help (vaccines/blood transfusions/medicine) as somehow being unethical or immoral.

"That bunch of Christians over yonder, they're the ones with the goofy beliefs, not me."

I also believe in the power of prayer and that yes miracle healings can and do happen, but I would oppose any of those mega church type spiritual revivals where they ask people for money and heal people on stage type of thing. I agree that seems sketch and lends itself to con.

"My prayers're valid, their prayers're sketch."

...
But I also think perhaps you aren’t fully understanding healthy and true understanding of God, where there is no contradiction between God and science. And in fact, the more that science reveals, the more one can come to appreciate the amazing living God.

What has science revealed that convinces you...

1. God's amazing
2. And living!

So, I guess my point is, perhaps you can’t relate to those you see as ‘the other’ because you don’t fully know what it is they actually believe. Like I said, I am a Christian, but have not found anything in my Christian beliefs that has been demonstrated to be false, but I still believe.

Well shut my mouth, a Christian ain't found em no reason not to believe.

As he disparages the beliefs and practices of those Christians he ain't proud to be amongst.

If anything, I continue to be amazed at how much the Bible and the Church get right.

Per your previous comments, where has science shown that dead dudes hop up after three days?

Current worldview ideologies pale in comparison to the Church’s wisdom and insight.

As yours pales against that of a third grade science student.