Theism Analogy: Living Rocks of Death Valley

[boatsnguitars]

The mystery of the sailing stones
Located on the border of California and Nevada, Death Valley National Park was designated in 1933, and is home to one of the world's strangest phenomena: rocks that move along the desert ground with no gravitational cause. Known as "sailing stones," the rocks vary in size from a few ounces to hundreds of pounds. Though no one has ever seen them actually move in person, the trails left behind the stones and periodic changes in their location make it clear that they do.

The rocks of Racetrack Playa are composed of dolomite and syenite, the same materials that make up the surrounding mountains. They tumble down due to the forces of erosion, coming to rest on the parched ground below. Once they reach the level surface of the playa, the rocks somehow move horizontally, leaving perfect tracks behind them to record their path.

Many of the largest rocks have left behind trails as long as 1,500 feet, suggesting that they've moved a long way indeed from their original location. Rocks with a rough-bottomed surface leave straight tracks, while smooth-bottomed rocks tend to wander. The sailing stones have been observed and studied since the early 1900s, and several theories have been suggested to explain their mysterious movements.

"Proposed explanations run the gamut from natural to paranormal to alien. Strange magnetic forces, psychic energy, alien spacecraft, teenage pranksters, and even transdimensional vortices have all been proposed. "

Theist explanation:
Supernatural forces exist. God is revealing Himself to us. God is moving them.

The wonder this phenomenon instills likewise reminds us of the majesty and power of the Invisible Intelligence (cf. Romans 1.20), creating the very physics making moving rocks possible.

As I read about the sailing stones, I could not help but recall the words of Jesus when asked by the Pharisees to rebuke His followers. The occasion was Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem. The people were crying out their “hosannas” to the Lord. Jesus told the Pharisees, quoting from the prophet Habakkuk, that “if these become silent, the stones will cry out!” (Luke 19.40 NASB; Habakkuk 2.11) Indeed!

If you ever question your worth to God, recall the sailing stones. Without the benefit of intelligence or purpose, they still point to their Creator. They appear to be immovable, and yet are pliable by the laws God put in place. As I take stock of what I can do, I note that even I can do more than the sailing stones, possessing locomotion and free will. How shameful, then, when I choose to sit silent as a boulder. May God use me like a rock so others can see my deeds and give God the glory (Matthew 5.13-16).

Further "science" from theists was that if the stones were pushed by a flood, the tracks would have been erased. Or, wind isn't strong enough. etc. There were many knee jerk answers to the problem, all included supernatural elements - because to them, that's the first explanation when something is unexplained.


Scientific explanation:

In 2014, scientists were able to capture the movement of the stones for the first time using time-lapse photography. The results strongly suggest that the sailing stones are the result of a perfect balance of ice, water, and wind. In the winter of 2014, rain formed a small pond that froze overnight and thawed the next day, creating a vast sheet of ice that was reduced by midday to only a few millimeters thick. Driven by a light wind, this sheet broke up and accumulated behind the stones, slowly pushing them forward.
https://www.nationalparks.org/connect/b ... f%20pounds.
https://earthsky.org/earth/death-valley ... ry-solved/

This is what is happening with the Shroud of Turin, Evolution, Climate Change, etc: Theists (and other wackos) offering ridiculous "answers" to solve very mundane problems.

So, what is your explanation for the rocks moving in Death Valley?

[TRANSPONDER]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

I reckon 'theistic thinking'(and cult - think) is a Thing, just as rational, logical, critical and indeed scientific thinking is a thing, or a method. Succinctly, one starts with the evidence and builds conclusions from it.

Theist (and cult) thinking in my experience, starts with the conclusion and fiddles the evidence to fit it. To take these moving rocks as an example. A puzzle. The materialist view suggests there is a natural cause but what is not known.

The theistic or supernatural type of thinking argues there must be some supernatural agency because 'science can't explain it'.

I am a theist. 1213 is a theist.

Neither one of us argued for that.

So how can you call your description "theistic thinking"?


Peace again.

Another thing I am aware of is 'choose your battles'. Aside from individuals like you or 1213, others might accept unknown natural explanations for some puzzles, or they may insist on a supernatural element, like in NDEs or spontaneous remission. That a supernatural element in moving rocks, especially if there as a researched explanation, can mean that moving rocks is not a hill for theist think to die on. The sun standing still or the claim of resurrection, on the other hand, might be.

Transponder. What is the point in what you just said? I'm pushing because regardless of the evidence in front of you, you're still pushing for this invention called "theistic thinking."

If a theist does not think there must be a supernatural agency behind something just because science can't explain it (yet), how can you insist upon the term 'theistic thinking?"



Because I'll tell you what that looks like to me (other than prejudice against an entire group of people). It looks like some people - claiming to be rational thinkers - are sticking to their guns despite any evidence to the contrary. In other words, they are doing the very thing they are accusing others of doing: ignoring the evidence in order to maintain their belief in something.

Just sayin'

Peace again to you.

Because in my experience (from before the 80's) I've been familiar with faithbased thinking, trying to tailor the evidence to fit that belief.

And I never said that kind of thinking never happened. Only that it happens with people from all walks of life (including atheists). Surely you know that.

How then can it be 'theistic thinking' if it occurs with atheists as well?

Passing over the finger pointing of bias or stubbornness on my part,

Isn't that what this thread is? Finger-pointing at theists - claiming fault with their thinking? If you (general you) don't want your own fingers pointed right back at you, then don't do the same thing you are accusing others of doing.

this is what I experience all the time in debate and discussion. Sure there are times when Theists can use rational and science based thinking when it is not a matter in which they have invested Faith. But when they HAVE invested faith, then theistic faithbased thinking is what I get. It a mode of thinking they do. It isn't about you or 1213 personally but a general observation on faithbased thinking., so you and he not doing it this time (it was not a hill to die on) is not evidence of an exception that disproves the Rule You know better than 'I didn't do it this time, so none of us do it anytime'.

I never said 'none of us do it anytime'. I said ALL of us (theist and non-theist alike) do it sometime.

This conversation isn't a hill to die on either, but if this thread was supposed to be enough to signal that theists have bad thinking, then the evidence of theists on this thread NOT thinking that way should be enough to at least cause people on this thread to consider that there might be something ELSE at play; that their conclusions are wrong.

Bible critics do too, when it's a Thing they feel strongly about (like Q document, Luke copying Matthew or Mark being the synoptic original).

Therefore:

If everyone (theist and non-theist alike) does it at some point or another, how can you label it "theistic thinking" or "faith-based thinking"?


The answer to the question is that you can't, but it does not appear that anyone is willing to own up to that, so I will leave it with you all to justify it or not, as you choose.


Peace still to you.

Because with rational thought (atheism is a subset) the materialist default (or science based theory) is first option, and you said that you (and out pal) went for it; correctly.

It is not by any means the natural way of thinking, bur was a method that had to be worked out, science and philosophy, by the old Greeks and the enlightened scientists of the Renaissance.

But Religion does not only do Faithbased thinking, but recommends it over mere human reasoning. As i said, you opted for the natural explanation with the moving stones, for reasons i can guess; you knew, deep down, there would probably be one and it was not a battle you would win if you claimed it was some supernatural means, especially as it didn't help the Bible.

I have done before blaming atheism for individual atheists not always doing reasoning correctly. That doesn't make the method wrong. Yes, atheists may fight for some preferred theory or other rather than accept the evidence. One of my toughest debates was with an atheist on the Other board who would not accept the evidence than Mark is NOT the original, but as amended and added to as Matthew and Luke.

But that doesn't make the Rational and evidence - based method invalid. Nor that you and 1213 opted not to die on the supernatural hill over the sliding stones does not mean that Religions do not opt for, prefer and recommend faithbased thinking (Theist -think) over science when there IS a hill to die on.

[boatsnguitars]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

I reckon 'theistic thinking'(and cult - think) is a Thing, just as rational, logical, critical and indeed scientific thinking is a thing, or a method. Succinctly, one starts with the evidence and builds conclusions from it.

Theist (and cult) thinking in my experience, starts with the conclusion and fiddles the evidence to fit it. To take these moving rocks as an example. A puzzle. The materialist view suggests there is a natural cause but what is not known.

The theistic or supernatural type of thinking argues there must be some supernatural agency because 'science can't explain it'.

I am a theist. 1213 is a theist.

Neither one of us argued for that.

So how can you call your description "theistic thinking"?


Peace again.

Another thing I am aware of is 'choose your battles'. Aside from individuals like you or 1213, others might accept unknown natural explanations for some puzzles, or they may insist on a supernatural element, like in NDEs or spontaneous remission. That a supernatural element in moving rocks, especially if there as a researched explanation, can mean that moving rocks is not a hill for theist think to die on. The sun standing still or the claim of resurrection, on the other hand, might be.

Transponder. What is the point in what you just said? I'm pushing because regardless of the evidence in front of you, you're still pushing for this invention called "theistic thinking."

If a theist does not think there must be a supernatural agency behind something just because science can't explain it (yet), how can you insist upon the term 'theistic thinking?"



Because I'll tell you what that looks like to me (other than prejudice against an entire group of people). It looks like some people - claiming to be rational thinkers - are sticking to their guns despite any evidence to the contrary. In other words, they are doing the very thing they are accusing others of doing: ignoring the evidence in order to maintain their belief in something.

Just sayin'

Peace again to you.

Because in my experience (from before the 80's) I've been familiar with faithbased thinking, trying to tailor the evidence to fit that belief.

And I never said that kind of thinking never happened. Only that it happens with people from all walks of life (including atheists). Surely you know that.

How then can it be 'theistic thinking' if it occurs with atheists as well?

Passing over the finger pointing of bias or stubbornness on my part,

Isn't that what this thread is? Finger-pointing at theists - claiming fault with their thinking? If you (general you) don't want your own fingers pointed right back at you, then don't do the same thing you are accusing others of doing.

this is what I experience all the time in debate and discussion. Sure there are times when Theists can use rational and science based thinking when it is not a matter in which they have invested Faith. But when they HAVE invested faith, then theistic faithbased thinking is what I get. It a mode of thinking they do. It isn't about you or 1213 personally but a general observation on faithbased thinking., so you and he not doing it this time (it was not a hill to die on) is not evidence of an exception that disproves the Rule You know better than 'I didn't do it this time, so none of us do it anytime'.

I never said 'none of us do it anytime'. I said ALL of us (theist and non-theist alike) do it sometime.

This conversation isn't a hill to die on either, but if this thread was supposed to be enough to signal that theists have bad thinking, then the evidence of theists on this thread NOT thinking that way should be enough to at least cause people on this thread to consider that there might be something ELSE at play; that their conclusions are wrong.

Bible critics do too, when it's a Thing they feel strongly about (like Q document, Luke copying Matthew or Mark being the synoptic original).

Therefore:

If everyone (theist and non-theist alike) does it at some point or another, how can you label it "theistic thinking" or "faith-based thinking"?


The answer to the question is that you can't, but it does not appear that anyone is willing to own up to that, so I will leave it with you all to justify it or not, as you choose.


Peace still to you.

Because with rational thought (atheism is a subset) the materialist default (or science based theory) is first option, and you said that you (and out pal) went for it; correctly.

It is not by any means the natural way of thinking, bur was a method that had to be worked out, science and philosophy, by the old Greeks and the enlightened scientists of the Renaissance.

But Religion does not only do Faithbased thinking, but recommends it over mere human reasoning. As i said, you opted for the natural explanation with the moving stones, for reasons i can guess; you knew, deep down, there would probably be one and it was not a battle you would win if you claimed it was some supernatural means, especially as it didn't help the Bible.

I have done before blaming atheism for individual atheists not always doing reasoning correctly. That doesn't make the method wrong. Yes, atheists may fight for some preferred theory or other rather than accept the evidence. One of my toughest debates was with an atheist on the Other board who would not accept the evidence than Mark is NOT the original, but as amended and added to as Matthew and Luke.

But that doesn't make the Rational and evidence - based method invalid. Nor that you and 1213 opted not to die on the supernatural hill over the sliding stones does not mean that Religions do not opt for, prefer and recommend faithbased thinking (Theist -think) over science when there IS a hill to die on.

It's interesting, no? That Supernaturalists will say, "Well, of course I assume a material reason for an event: a car crash, murder, rock slide, or whatever". But then, they so effortlessly offer a supernatural reason for anything that is unknown or convenient to support their belief.

For example, why not presume - if you believe in ghosts - that ghosts cause most accidents at home? Certainly there must be billions of ghosts, or at least millions. Not to mention other spirits. And, since this entails a robust supernatural universe that wouldn't simply include only ghosts, but supernatural energy and supernatural consciousnesses, supernatural laws, etc. This would make one almost assume the FIRST assumption is the supernatural.

Yet, this appears to not be the case. They seem to happily accept Materialist reasons when it's convenient. Then, in the Gaps, they try to insert their Faith.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. An old apologetic and debate is the 'CSI gambit'. The argument for a natural explanation being preferred is seen in court cases wherte evatuation of evidence forensic and logical informs how the case goes. We NEVER hear 'Well maybe God or Satan put that bullet there". Never. Nobody makes arguments like that in court. Their legal reputation would die on that hill for sure.

But when it comes to Bible apologetics, any supernatural excuse for evidence that undermines Holy Writ will do. If not Satan (or maybe God) put the fossils there, or God made a cosmic light that switched on and off like day and night before the sun was even made, then sornehow, the Flood and Ark work, because the Bible says so. Which is an alternative to 'The Bible doesn't actually say so'. As we may get the 'cloud cover' apologetic. They don't always agree on the theory they invent (and I swear believe God put into their head) but it doesn't matter as the idea is to keep doubt away with any excuse, even if they know it isn't true, because evidence doesn't matter; Faith does.

[boatsnguitars]

Yes. An old apologetic and debate is the 'CSI gambit'. The argument for a natural explanation being preferred is seen in court cases wherte evatuation of evidence forensic and logical informs how the case goes. We NEVER hear 'Well maybe God or Satan put that bullet there". Never. Nobody makes arguments like that in court. Their legal reputation would die on that hill for sure.

But when it comes to Bible apologetics, any supernatural excuse for evidence that undermines Holy Writ will do. If not Satan (or maybe God) put the fossils there, or God made a cosmic light that switched on and off like day and night before the sun was even made, then sornehow, the Flood and Ark work, because the Bible says so. Which is an alternative to 'The Bible doesn't actually say so'. As we may get the 'cloud cover' apologetic. They don't always agree on the theory they invent (and I swear believe God put into their head) but it doesn't matter as the idea is to keep doubt away with any excuse, even if they know it isn't true, because evidence doesn't matter; Faith does.

Imagine if the Supernaturalists were right: Court cases would routinely include Mediums to cross exam ghosts and angels. It would be completely normal to ask a Priest to assess whether it was God's M.O. to do such a thing or not.

After the trial, the perpetrator would be prayed over and fixed. I mean, why any crime at all if prayer worked at all?

Hospitals wouldn't exist - you'd simply pray away your cancer - and, why would cancer exist in the first place, since it would be so ingrained in society that there was a God that it would be absurd to think God didn't exist. Sin would be so rare - like in Heaven, presumably.

So many institutions would be so utterly different. Feng Shui would be written into building codes. It's hard to even think of all the impacts.

Consumer safety laws wouldn't exist because you could rely on psychics to know if there were shady things going on, or you'd use your 3rd eye to judge whether something was dangerous.


"It doesn't work that way!", they'll complain. Yeah... no kidding.

[TRANSPONDER]

Exactly. It is the same with 'moral codes'. Today we all live by humanist moral codes, even in theocracies where the religion is supposed to be the basis. So we work with reasoned approaches to what happens- where we have an idea of what's going on. As soon as we are stumped for an explanation, the temptation is to say 'Magic', the supernatural or a god (or the demon, if it's bad...unless someone is being punished.

It was useful for Tam to point this up in the 'we didn't opt for a supernatural explanation' as that led into exposition of the instinctive way we think where making up magical explanations has been tempered by centuries of practical thought and decades of scientific thought.

science and secularism, whether they like it or not, forms the basis for ours and theirs thinking, and the supernatural explanations only come into play where reality undercuts the religion, cult or Fad, whether god doing stuff, alternative history, science or medicine or conspiracy theories, some of which are reminiscent of the excuses for the (wrong) order of creation. I recall one claimthat the 9/11planes were missiles with a hologram of aircraft projected around them.

As in the 'conjuring trick' Axiom, when people understand how instinctive thinking and ad hoc explanations work, they won't be fooled again. I know people like their beliefs, fads and pet theories, but I do believe that people really like to think their beliefs are based on reason, not denial.

[Diogenes]

...You may recall Trump claimed injecting or swallowing bleach could stop COVID. ...

Actually I would like to see him saying that. Sounds too much like mainstream media propaganda that has not much to do with truth.

Not only can you see Trump himself saying it (no media propaganda necessary), you can see him, his actual face, his lips, his voice, saying many stupid things, including talking about airports during the American Revolution. When one is determined to ignore evidence and blame 'the media,' one can believe anything, including the many myths in the Bible.

[1213]

...You may recall Trump claimed injecting or swallowing bleach could stop COVID. ...

Actually I would like to see him saying that. Sounds too much like mainstream media propaganda that has not much to do with truth.

Not only can you see Trump himself saying it (no media propaganda necessary), ...

Maybe I don't hear well, but he doesn't say "injecting or swallowing bleach could stop COVID". He says something like: disinfectants stop viruses effectively, could something like that be used for to cure covid, it would be interesting to study is there some way to use it. He is not saying that people should swallow bleach to stop covid. I think it is interesting how people twist his words even though anyone can hear what he actually says.

[TRANSPONDER]

...You may recall Trump claimed injecting or swallowing bleach could stop COVID. ...

Actually I would like to see him saying that. Sounds too much like mainstream media propaganda that has not much to do with truth.

Not only can you see Trump himself saying it (no media propaganda necessary), ...

Maybe I don't hear well, but he doesn't say "injecting or swallowing bleach could stop COVID". He says something like: disinfectants stop viruses effectively, could something like that be used for to cure covid, it would be interesting to study is there some way to use it. He is not saying that people should swallow bleach to stop covid. I think it is interesting how people twist his words even though anyone can hear what he actually says.

It's dumb. It's uninformed and unscientific. Even I know that the right way to deal with a problem like a pandemic is get reports from people who knew the subject not make idiotic suggestions like a ancient doctor prescribing mercury because it might possibly do something. This is someone who does not understand how to be a president, never asked for advice or took it when it was presented and is not fit to hold office, even without the shocking missteps.

This isn't the political forum but you can't be allowed to try paltry excuses like that for someone who understands how to be a dictator but does not understand how to be a president.

[Clownboat]

Maybe I don't hear well, but he doesn't say "injecting or swallowing bleach could stop COVID". He says something like: disinfectants stop viruses effectively, could something like that be used for to cure covid, it would be interesting to study is there some way to use it. He is not saying that people should swallow bleach to stop covid. I think it is interesting how people twist his words even though anyone can hear what he actually says.

I'm no Trump supporter, but I have noticed that for some anti Trumpers (I first heard Bill Maher make this point ironicaly), it is more important that he is perceived as being wrong than being honest about the man.
I believe that "Trump claimed injecting or swallowing bleach could stop COVID" is one such claim. Is that what he said or suggested, no, but the truth isn't what matters in this instance. Making the loon look more loony is the agenda, so it is claimed that he said to drink bleach and the choir buys the claim.

Like many of the religious do, the goal is to make the other side seem crazy because that takes away focus from their own religion. Human nature for many unfortunately, but let's be clear about one thing, the same parts of the brain light up when discussing religion, your favorite sports team or politics. So should we be surprised?

Claims like this are no different then the videos out there 'showing' (opinions will vary) Biden talking like an idiot. For anyone curious, just search 'How to speak Bidenese'.

There are legit reasons to not want Trump as a president. The bleach argument isn't one of them IMO and just reminds me of Bidenese. Whether Biden is a moron or not doesn't matter for many Trump supporters, that he appears to be a moron that can't speak is what is important to them.

[1213]

Maybe I don't hear well, but he doesn't say "injecting or swallowing bleach could stop COVID". He says something like: disinfectants stop viruses effectively, could something like that be used for to cure covid, it would be interesting to study is there some way to use it. He is not saying that people should swallow bleach to stop covid. I think it is interesting how people twist his words even though anyone can hear what he actually says.

I'm no Trump supporter, but I have noticed that for some anti Trumpers (I first heard Bill Maher make this point ironicaly), it is more important that he is perceived as being wrong than being honest about the man.
I believe that "Trump claimed injecting or swallowing bleach could stop COVID" is one such claim. ...

Thank you, nice that we can agree on something.

And, I think it is true that it is not only Trump haters who do so. It would be nice, if people would not do so and that people would also understand to be careful and not believe everything just because it fits to ones view of the matter.