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]

There's a nasty bug in the site. I replied to each of your points and tried to preview. The site considered me as not logged in and prompted me to login, I did so. When the page returned all of my edits were gone, totally lost, most frustrating and not the best use of 20 minutes!

Sounds to me like you timed out, so auto logged out.

Helps to copy a post into a word processor, then copy it back into the site.

Yes, that is the source of the problem.

I was logged in, began to edit a reply, was called away for an extended period. Upon my return I was unaware that the session had timed out and the UI gave no indication either, so I continued editing the post.

Then attempting to Submit the post led to a prompt to login and at that point the work was silently discarded.

I'm sure this could be improved but its likely a low priority.

In that case you most likely coulda used the back button to access your commented post, and either resubmitted, or used the copy deal.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #21]

No, the back button did not salvage what I wrote, I see a "Save Draft" feature, that's probably something I should use more.

[Jose Fly]

Yes, I do regard what I perceive as the external world as truly existing independently of me.

Ok.

As for understanding reality, well I don't know, physics taught me that understanding changes all the time, what was once regarded as "understanding gravitation" for example is now discarded and there's a newer, better understanding, and tomorrow? who knows. So understanding seems to me to be beyond our grasp, always just an interpretation, fleeting.

Do you believe it's possible that the earth is really flat?

I think someone who truly believes the earth is flat is irrational - IMHO - but it is often used as an example of how we assume so much.

That seems a bit contradictory to what you said above. Our conclusion that the earth is spherical is merely an understanding that could change, is it not?

I'd need to speak to the individual before trying to label them, try to understand their reasoning even though I likely won't share it.

Well, to be blunt....you're a good example of what I'm talking about. As I've pointed out before, you've made claims about the non-existence of transitional fossils and examples of continuity in the fossil record, had people post examples of those things, and either ignored or waved them away. You've claimed that evolution has been falsified, but when pressed by multiple people to back up that assertion you refused.

Other examples here include ESG claiming to quote a paper but when I pointed out that the quote isn't in the paper and is opposite of what the authors actually said, he just stopped replying to me and continued on with others. Eloi refused to answer almost all of the questions posed to him/her, including accusing me of "stalking" and using that as an excuse to avoid replying to my posts.

All of those strike me as classic coping mechanisms, and more specifically forms of avoidance behavior. I've seen probably hundreds of creationists do those same things for over 20 years, which is why when I first came here I pointed out how your behavior was pretty typical among creationists and we could expect discussions with you to follow the standard pattern of "creationist makes assertion, rest of thread is people (unsuccessfully) trying to get creationist to back up the assertion".

Now, I'm sure you'll say that's just my interpretation of events, and that's true. What I'm curious about is....what is your interpretation of them? When Barbarian posts examples and descriptions of transitional fossils and you don't address them, what's your internal narrative? How do you justify such beahvior?

I see, well I simply regard that as fear of being wrong, most people I've met have a fear of admitting error so won't admit error, their ego is more important than truth, this trait is not restricted to poorly educated religious fundamentalists either.

Agreed. So tell me....if it turns out that all life on earth shares a common evolutionary ancestry (humans included), how would that affect you? Would you have to alter your religious beliefs at all? Would you have to change how you interpret the Bible?

Yes, but not everyone takes the same approach to potentially being wrong. Not that long ago Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson tweeted something like "A plane that loses its engine is a glider, a helicopter that loses its engine is a brick". Soon thereafter some helicopter pilots tweeted back that he was actually wrong and they had a specific technique for getting a engine-less helicopter to land safely. Dr. Tyson asked them to show him and said "If I'm wrong, I want to know. I want to learn".

Yes, sounds like me in that respect.

That's fascinating, because given the behaviors I've seen from you in this forum, I see it as the exact opposite. I see you avoid information that runs counter to your assertions and I see you shut down discussions fairly regularly. That doesn't strike me as someone who "wants to know when I'm wrong".

There's no doubt that fundamentalist Christians are rigid in their thinking, but I do not regard that as implying anything about theology, God or the Bible. I don't think such people discredit theology or the Bible any more than fanatical eugenicists in the past discredited scientific inquiry.

I agree.

Well perhaps we should meditate on why we hate being wrong and admitting it

I've found it to be a bit of a skill, kind of like courage. The first few times you try it, it can be scary and difficult but the more you do it the easier it gets.

[Inquirer]

Yes, I do regard what I perceive as the external world as truly existing independently of me.

Ok.

As for understanding reality, well I don't know, physics taught me that understanding changes all the time, what was once regarded as "understanding gravitation" for example is now discarded and there's a newer, better understanding, and tomorrow? who knows. So understanding seems to me to be beyond our grasp, always just an interpretation, fleeting.

Do you believe it's possible that the earth is really flat?

Not a plane, I mean it is flat locally, any small enough region of a sphere's surface is indistinguishable from flat if its small enough but that's not what flat earther's claim, they go further than that.

I think someone who truly believes the earth is flat is irrational - IMHO - but it is often used as an example of how we assume so much.

That seems a bit contradictory to what you said above. Our conclusion that the earth is spherical is merely an understanding that could change, is it not?

Yes, I suppose it could in principle.

I'd need to speak to the individual before trying to label them, try to understand their reasoning even though I likely won't share it.

Well, to be blunt....you're a good example of what I'm talking about. As I've pointed out before, you've made claims about the non-existence of transitional fossils and examples of continuity in the fossil record, had people post examples of those things, and either ignored or waved them away. You've claimed that evolution has been falsified, but when pressed by multiple people to back up that assertion you refused.

I'm sorry, I'm nipping this in the bud right here and now, I'm not prepared to continue this with you. I want to discuss the subject but you want to discuss me.

[Jose Fly]

I'm sorry, I'm nipping this in the bud right here and now, I'm not prepared to continue this with you. I want to discuss the subject but you want to discuss me.

I hope you appreciate how this is yet another example of exactly the sort of behavior I've been talking about. I watched as you edited the above 3 or 4 times, a clear indication that you were trying to find some way to shut down this discussion. Interestingly, you didn't seem to have any problem discussing yourself when you said "Yes, sounds like me in that respect" and you even recommended that folks "speak to the individual before trying to label them, try to understand their reasoning", yet when I do precisely that you immediately shut the whole thing down.

So it seems you're okay with talking about yourself as long as it's flattering, and you recommend people try to understand each other but when I try and understand your behavior you refuse to engage.

Thus we see the entire point of this thread. I am completely baffled by behaviors like that, am very curious about your internal narrative, and am flummoxed at how you don't even seem to be aware of what you're doing (or perhaps you just don't care?).

That's my interpretation, and unless someone gives me a good reason to change it, I'll stick with it.

[William]

Perhaps it is a question of intelligence - the differing levels.

It appears to me that those who display obvious intelligence are more accepting of scientific evidence and doing diligent research - there being different types of Christians reflects this observation to some degree.

[Inquirer]

I'm sorry, I'm nipping this in the bud right here and now, I'm not prepared to continue this with you. I want to discuss the subject but you want to discuss me.

I hope you appreciate how this is yet another example of exactly the sort of behavior I've been talking about. I watched as you edited the above 3 or 4 times, a clear indication that you were trying to find some way to shut down this discussion. Interestingly, you didn't seem to have any problem discussing yourself when you said "Yes, sounds like me in that respect" and you even recommended that folks "speak to the individual before trying to label them, try to understand their reasoning", yet when I do precisely that you immediately shut the whole thing down.

So it seems you're okay with talking about yourself as long as it's flattering, and you recommend people try to understand each other but when I try and understand your behavior you refuse to engage.

Thus we see the entire point of this thread. I am completely baffled by behaviors like that, am very curious about your internal narrative, and am flummoxed at how you don't even seem to be aware of what you're doing (or perhaps you just don't care?).

That's my interpretation, and unless someone gives me a good reason to change it, I'll stick with it.

Note that making references to oneself or one's own opinions and feelings has absolutely nothing to do with the established definition of the ad-hominem fallacy, which is the reason I gave up trying to discuss the threads subject with you. As that link indicates the ad-hominem attack is a favorite tactic of Donald Trump, a source of many good examples of this fallacy but he's far from unique in this respect:

If you disagree with me about what constitutes the fallacy, please feel free to enter into a discussion about this, perhaps starting a thread. I'm more than prepared to support my argument with facts and evidence. It's even perhaps arguable that this very thread's OP itself constitutes an ad-hominem attack against creation advocates.

[Jose Fly]

Perhaps it is a question of intelligence - the differing levels.

That's a conclusion I've tried to avoid reaching for years. I can recall times in church when I'd think to myself "these people don't seem to be all that intelligent" and there have been lots of times when a specific creationist would behave in a way that made me conclude they just weren't very smart. But eventually I'd walk back from that because I'm worried that it might be merely a lazy way of dismissing people without at least trying to hear them out.

It appears to me that those who display obvious intelligence are more accepting of scientific evidence and doing diligent research - there being different types of Christians reflects this observation to some degree.

IMO, critical thinking skills and intellectual openness are the biggest factors.

[Jose Fly]

Note that making references to oneself or one's own opinions and feelings has absolutely nothing to do with the established definition of the ad-hominem fallacy, which is the reason I gave up trying to discuss the threads subject with you. As that link indicates the ad-hominem attack is a favorite tactic of Donald Trump, a source of many good examples of this fallacy but he's far from unique in this respect:

If you disagree with me about what constitutes the fallacy, please feel free to enter into a discussion about this, perhaps starting a thread. I'm more than prepared to support my argument with facts and evidence. It's even perhaps arguable that this very thread's OP itself constitutes an ad-hominem attack against creation advocates.

First, the ad hominem fallacy is where you attack someone personally as a means to discredit their position, as in "You believe in creationism. You're dumb, therefore creationism is wrong." I've done nothing of the sort.

Second, recall that you were the one who recommended that we try and understand each other. So here I am, trying to understand some of what I find baffling about creationists. If you don't want to participate, just say so and leave the thread.

Finally, I wonder if you realize how....you're doing it again! You've made yet another attempt to shut down a conversation, this time via the old creationist tactic of crying "personal attack" whenever anyone starts talking about your behaviors.

Look....this isn't specifically about you. You are merely the latest person to exhibit some of the common behaviors I've noticed among conservative Christians my whole life. Faith healers, end times preachers, televangelists, creationists, door-to-door proselytizers.....all tend to employ the same defensive mechanisms when confronted with inconvenient information. You repeatedly ignoring data that you'd claimed doesn't exist is no different than the end times preacher ignoring the fact that his latest prediction didn't come true, or the televangelist whose financial books are exposed.....deny, try and shut down the conversation, and play the victim.

And again, I understand why y'all do these things. That part I understand. What I don't get is how you're seemingly so oblivious to it all. When you say there's no continuity in the fossil record, I show you examples of exactly that, and you ignore it....I know what you're doing. It's classic avoidance behavior. What fascinates me is, what do you tell yourself in those situations? When our preacher insisted that certain events were guaranteed to happen before I graduated high school, what did he tell himself when they didn't happen such that he felt confident making even more predictions? What do the people who follow him tell themselves?

It seems whenever I try and dig into that, y'all do everything in your power to shut the whole thing down. All I can figure is that you guys must be very emotionally and psychologically fragile, to the point where you have to do whatever you can to maintain your worldview and beliefs. The consequences of even opening the door to questioning them must be extremely severe and frightening, and so if you have to engage in some rather transparent behaviors to keep that from happening, so be it. At the end of the day you still come away with your beliefs, and all the benefits they provide, in tact. And that's all that matters I guess.

[Inquirer]

Note that making references to oneself or one's own opinions and feelings has absolutely nothing to do with the established definition of the ad-hominem fallacy, which is the reason I gave up trying to discuss the threads subject with you. As that link indicates the ad-hominem attack is a favorite tactic of Donald Trump, a source of many good examples of this fallacy but he's far from unique in this respect:

If you disagree with me about what constitutes the fallacy, please feel free to enter into a discussion about this, perhaps starting a thread. I'm more than prepared to support my argument with facts and evidence. It's even perhaps arguable that this very thread's OP itself constitutes an ad-hominem attack against creation advocates.

First, the ad hominem fallacy is where you attack someone personally as a means to discredit their position, as in "You believe in creationism. You're dumb, therefore creationism is wrong." I've done nothing of the sort.

Second, recall that you were the one who recommended that we try and understand each other. So here I am, trying to understand some of what I find baffling about creationists. If you don't want to participate, just say so and leave the thread.

Finally, I wonder if you realize how....you're doing it again! You've made yet another attempt to shut down a conversation, this time via the old creationist tactic of crying "personal attack" whenever anyone starts talking about your behaviors.

Look....this isn't specifically about you. You are merely the latest person to exhibit some of the common behaviors I've noticed among conservative Christians my whole life. Faith healers, end times preachers, televangelists, creationists, door-to-door proselytizers.....all tend to employ the same defensive mechanisms when confronted with inconvenient information. You repeatedly ignoring data that you'd claimed doesn't exist is no different than the end times preacher ignoring the fact that his latest prediction didn't come true, or the televangelist whose financial books are exposed.....deny, try and shut down the conversation, and play the victim.

And again, I understand why y'all do these things. That part I understand. What I don't get is how you're seemingly so oblivious to it all. When you say there's no continuity in the fossil record, I show you examples of exactly that, and you ignore it....I know what you're doing. It's classic avoidance behavior. What fascinates me is, what do you tell yourself in those situations? When our preacher insisted that certain events were guaranteed to happen before I graduated high school, what did he tell himself when they didn't happen such that he felt confident making even more predictions? What do the people who follow him tell themselves?

It seems whenever I try and dig into that, y'all do everything in your power to shut the whole thing down. All I can figure is that you guys must be very emotionally and psychologically fragile, to the point where you have to do whatever you can to maintain your worldview and beliefs. The consequences of even opening the door to questioning them must be extremely severe and frightening, and so if you have to engage in some rather transparent behaviors to keep that from happening, so be it. At the end of the day you still come away with your beliefs, and all the benefits they provide, in tact. And that's all that matters I guess.

I believe that only a moderator can "shutdown" a thread Jose. My refusal to discuss your opinions of me (when we could be discussing the claims made in your OP) cannot by any stretch of the imagination amount to an attempt by me to "shut the whole thing down".