Noahs flood debate

Religion and Secularism
102

Scott is being a little difficult, so I’m just going to show my work and let that go wherever it will.

First, he uses a common technique, online or otherwise, saying a lot of things, so when one of them is responded to, or a summary statement is made, he can find some specific words and quote himself. Those words may or may not represent his overall focus or intentions. In this case, saying he was being “casual” does not represent paragraphs full of other things he said.

Second, he claims to know science and know logic. Part of science is “peer review”. He can submit his works to experts if he wants, but he says here he doesn’t, so were his peers. We know science too. The best scientists submit their work, and their peers point out a statistical flaw, missing data, an error in reasoning. That’s what we do here. He seems to have a problem with our opinions, data, and reasoning.

Third, kind of ironic, huh? He says he doesn’t accept authority just because they have a degree, then tries to claim he has experience with science, and logic is in his “background”. I’m fine with informal credentials, they should be equal to a degree. Doesn’t matter, the claim still needs to be backed up by data and evidence, and pass peer review.

Fourth, he just won’t quit. He brings up some story of Henry Ford having a wealth of experts at his command. We all have that now. We have better libraries than Henry had and much easier ways to get to those sources. Again, ironic, Scott describes having expert sources, but when asked for data and evidence, the sources that the experts would have, he considers that an insult.

I don’t like looking up fallacies so much. All these things, science, Bayes theorem, whatever, they are based on how our minds work. They are the answer to what we do when we disagree. They do not include methods like; claiming personal harm because you were questioned, labeling a question as a “challenge” or “contentious”, claiming there are special rules here at CFI, saying we don’t “stop and think”, wildly mischaracterizing others with phrases like, “you presume that I cannot possibly know anything”.

One of that last reasonable statements made was at post 77, “I would respond that we would have to question who the ‘legitimate’ experts are.” Totally legit, but that’s buried under a half dozen other statements about wanting our personal opinions, without referring to experts at all. I don’t think we can sort this out with him.

He says he wants us to “intuit”. What I think he really wants is for us to not ask questions him at all. My intuition says “el” in Spanish has little connection to “El” in the Bible. There, I intuited. Now what?

1 Like
103

[quote=“lausten, post:102, topic:8119”]
There, I intuited. Now what?

The problem with religion is that it is all intuition. Just like the Chimpanzee swinging his stick at that unseen power in the sky that makes loud noises and throws fire and water at him. He will defend his family from this intuitive enemy with all his masculine prowess.

Of course humans have submitted to their intuition and now pray to that unseen power in the sky to do them favors. Isn’t that precious?

On second thought, that is something you might program into artificial intelligence.

1 Like
104

This thread has turned into a very confusing read. About the only point that makes sense to me is this little observation.

and that “authority” is such an easy thing to misunderstand. Reminds me of the way “consensus” is so often attacked.

{tried to elaborate but it was a mess and I’m out of time again}

105

That’s what I’ve been saying and I agree with you on everything you said too.

106

The “intuition” I was referring to is the means of acting on PRIOR gained knowledge, not the magic religious thinking. Walking is intuitive this way. You cannot recall the literal ‘evidence’ of learning to walk nor require it because the brain learns to shortcut from both repetition and the variety of many interconnected associations related to ones practical experiences.

Since I did not have some tutor by my side while learning, I did not require ‘proving’ my references as learned to others; instead, what matters to one learning on their own is to be sure they understand the logic with priority. Constant outsource referencing is INDUCTIVE appeals that students should be expected to learn when going through the normal education route. But when one is learning on their own, DEDUCTIVE skills is the better approach. You guys cannot rationally make this distinction. The form of reasoning you expect is NOT ‘proof’ but ‘supportive’ appeals to popularity. While the crowd of appeal is towards those you respect as ‘qualified’, I can only determine actual qualifications of others by direct challenges to their own intellect, not some piece of paper or their ability to refer me to someone else not available here to challenge.

107

I don’t think you will ever accept that this is not what I’m doing. There are easy to find references to help you understand the difference between “popularity” and “authority” that could enhance everything I’ve said, but I don’t expect you to go looking for them. I find your evidence anecdotal, circumstantial, and argumentative. Also terms you could lookup.

1 Like
108

If you want to play the game, then reference your own denial of my interpretation. You are not merely positing your opinion of your preferred authority, you are denying that what I asserted and argued is certainly invalid and unsound simply for not having others who I can point to who happen to agree.

I did not disrespect your linked authority but I assert that your link is not a ‘proof’ but a kind of someone-else-has-the-same-opinion-I-agree-with-and-value type of reasoning. Then you transfer my doubt about your supposed authority (unknown) to the outsourced authority as though you think you can wipe your hands clean of the responsibility to prove your favored position by yourself. That’s a lazy cheat. You falsely malign me as being against your linked authority’s views when I have no actual means here to challenge her. Obviously you don’t know her work or you’d be able to argue it with confidence yourself. Own your thoughts.

Also ask yourself if this authority would actually disagree with me if I could speak to her directly? You’d be surprised that the sincere scientist knows where their limits are and might actually approve of other speculation but only advocates for her proposed position with obvious understanding of the difference.

109

I’ll just take a step back for now, without further prejudice. I don’t dislike anyone here and am only frustrated at something I perceive as a conflict of sociological background with clear differences in how we prioritize our forms of ‘proof’.

110

I suggested to you Acharya S (AKA DM Murdock). I also said to study Spanish and maybe English, but I can also add that you read some of the works of the retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong. I can list others as to where I get my sources from, but I did tell you many posts back the first three sources, but you still blew up and insisted you are right and I’m wrong. So don’t read any thing. It’s no skin off my back.

You see my “linked authority” as just an opinion? Then why bother giving you any of my sources, if you see an anthropologist/linguist/research (Acharya) or even one who has studied religion or even suggest you learn the languages you believe are related to what you THINK are related?

Even a linguist would disagree with you, not just a theologian and an anthropologist. What you speak of is not science or at least not a hard science, but yet linguists, theologians, and anthropologists would know and say you are off base.

111

I read a lot contrary to the implications that I don’t. My library is extensive and covers most major texts of the sciences and is nearly all non-fiction. Spong is one author I still have among my shelves and appreciate, for instance. But you have a lot to recommend as though I’m a moron but nothing of your own mind to speak beyond pointing elsewhere.

If you know their work, you don’t need to pass on the burden of me to do the work for you here. I can argue with clarity what evolution is to non-scientific minds because I know the logic, even if I might not recall the particular names of the particular contributors involved. I internalize what I learn but when I argue it, I relate it to their own internalized wisdom and background: Evolution - Philosophy Now…

I’ve changed minds of those with extreme views against taking vaccines and wearing masks by using an analogy to chain letters and network marketing schemes because those against these have a coinciding personality that is attracted to these things. [What are viruses and vaccines and how to they operate?

When arguing with a guy calling himself, “Army Guy”, I used his apparent militant Right-wing ideas to reflect his own views regarding the means of interpreting his blind obediance to authority as representing a sacrifice that he ironically did not respect of the requests to Covid vaccine and mask wearing. He has taken the vaccine and (as far as I know) wears masks now too (?): Hypocrisy of my body my choice

Another person there is Betsy who is a strong Evangelical Christian who I used her own hypocritical beliefs against abortion to show her own extremely odd concern to complain about freedom to simply wear masks yet not other’s personal bodies. It was in the same thread above that I basically closed. [See prior pages from the above if you’d like to see how I argued. The link above on the same site that argued for how vaccines work is linked for others there to use as reference.

The point is that I believe in arguing with what I and others know ‘intuitively’ and then work backwards from the premises agreed upon rather than telling them they are stupid, that they lack whole classes of knowlege credibility, and imposing they read x, y, and z to satisfy my capacity to argue. Those outside sources are questions at issue often and only act as evasive tactics that a lawyer might use to overburden their opponents’ workload in discovery procedures for determining value of evidence. [Like, as an extreme example, a lawyer would send their defendant’s company’s whole set of old records where the potential concerning evidence is a mere needle in a haystack. By forcing such overload, it both delays the process and makes it more likely to discover the incriminating evidence.]

And so now prove who you are and your own credentials to this amazing insight of me and your supposed credibility to speak on behalf of ALL linguists!

112

I don’t know what you mean when you say you want me to speak my own mind when there are reliable sources out there to learn from. I happen to agree with them. While many here do not agree with Acharya, I do and that is very controversial, but it makes sense to me. What you say doesn’t make any sense to me and it seems you want me to accept your opinion and not reliable sources.

What the heck are you talking about? I’m not asking for you to do any work for me. I’ve already done the research and yes, I do know their work and offer it to you. That’s not passing any work on to you. If you don’t want to read their stuff, then as I said, it’s no skin off my back.

113

Can you recommend a specific Acharya, or there a specific belief attached to that title?

114

lol No that’s not one of her books. Acharya S. also went by D.M. Murdock. I recommend “The Christ Conspiracy”, and “Suns of God” for starters. Then progress to others if you appreciated reading those two.

and

1 Like
115

Maybe I need to slow down, only here a few hours and already I’m becoming the “I used to believe this stuff” apologetic.

My personal experience confronting a literal Genesis account head-on from childhood indoctrination + an overwhelming will to pursue science was a fight that lasted about 5 minutes in literal first class of Geology 101 pursuing a Geology degree thinking I’d reinforce my preconceived notions of the natural world, perhaps as a profession (sigh). I never even really got to argue the points from my 100 page books talking about how unreliable uranium dating was or whatever explanation they had for the time it takes light to travel and be at our eyes because they didn’t care about me. There was no grand debate, there were people teaching, learning and doing science and pursuing the truth and it was pretty clear if I raised my hand I’d look rather foolish, especially when these weren’t a group of people looking to justify their sin as I was taught, which is apparent at face value. The first lesson was on sedimentary rock layered in the Grand Canyon and there it was, facts in front of me clearly contradicting anything I previously believed in depth and clarity backed up by so much evidence no one bothers to catalog in terms of “theories” or “proven”

To anyone here still clinging to literal interpretations of Genesis I implore you to seek someone out whom you trust with whom you disagree and ask them to help guide you. There are plenty of “Jesus is Lord” people out there who do not believe it to be literal who can help you. They even do good science even if I think they believe some outlandish things myself these days.

If you want help dealing with being wrong about tying God’s word to the “absolute truth” of their interpretation of the natural world there are many many fights and famous quotes from good meaning people who have said ignorant things (famously, heliocentrism is a good place to start). Maybe see how they dealt with it because how I read history not many just threw out the Bible entirely when proven wrong, absolutely, and you don’t have to either.

No need to double down in ignorance as all it serves is to divide. You will hit a lot of painful brick walls if you really try and pursue this issue honestly but with a sword. You can also fall into the trap of doubling down in your ignorance, as that big “reconstructed” arc is a nice testament to the lengths anyone can go in their own collective ignorance.

Truth is, if a monotheistic God did create all that we see in the natural universe, his power, awe and reach are far greater than any few paragraphs can summarize. Grab a nice 12" Dobsonian and peak at M58 in a decently dark sky and tell me the light you’re receiving into your eyeballs that is 62,000,000 years old containing billions of stars like our sun is somehow speaking of a “lesser God” than the one written down by humans thousands of years ago translated and transcribed many times over.

For me, I can’t reason God would lie to me, which is how I interpret the data in the natural world contrasted on what I used to believe was his absolute word. For a man like Galileo, it was, “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”

1 Like
116

Fair enough, it’s people who do the lying.

Like I’ve gotten this inner click of resentment anytime anyone says: “God bless you.” It’s like who are you to bestow “god’s” blessing. Give me your blessing or thanks and call it good.

1 Like
117

Just a matter: many religious people really believe in theirs gods for many reasons. they are not liars.

118

Why do you call them “liars”? They have faith, truth, honesty has nothing to do with that, it’s a different ball game. I myself would call them self-deluded.

119

A creation of the human mind doesn’t lie, but it’s still not real.

120

Not sure if you guys are trying to engage me in debate but that line you’re picking at is the mentality I had when I was a teenager. The God these people worship would not lie to them and I was only appealing to them based on that, not you guys.

You guys have the power here because you’re right. Try and be gracious about it. Was the problem that the Church was wrong about Galileo or was it how they acted on him because they thought he was wrong? Pretty sure the abhorrent part of that story is his punishment. Let’s learn from that human reaction and not be that.

These people believe in a God who represents love, meet them on those grounds even while they’re crazy-eyed ignorant and you will get much better results. Christianity should be low hanging fruit to bring back into the logic-fold in America as this entire country comes from Deists (essentially the Dawkins-like of the 1700s) and Christians to begin with representing this argument during a much more tenuous and angry phase. There are clear benefits to having a bigger tent, we only have the aforementioned heliocentrism advanced for instance because religious people wanted to know how the world worked according to the God they worship. I find religious people from any religion serve as a great starting point for formulating hypothesis (not conclusions, omg). Even on a very primitive level, if religious people didn’t marvel at comets and write everything down we wouldn’t have data on comets we use today to determine their orbital characteristics, size, etc. Stoke those flames and we’re doing much better science while all being on the same page.

Also, love is great. Love leads to understanding and working together. That’s legit the thing behind what these people are getting wrong, a religion that speaks love. If you’re really only interested in “winning” an argument you should pay special heed to this as it’s the only surefire way to undue this nonsense. Love doesn’t spike footballs though so don’t expect that same satisfaction, just forward progress. Total secret weapon, it’d be like if you were walking around talking about time travel all the time and they could just quote Einstein on causality and be right. Love is there game, love is a thing we like, let’s treat them that way even if that’s not where they’re trying to meet us initially. Winning strat.

You don’t have to believe in the wizard, resist that and fallacies while meeting people where they’re at, this is a much better formula than derision. We all want the same thing in the end is an important thing to understand, the truth. We’re also on the same side, throw Cain and Abel at them on that front.

I’ll repeat for clarity: Every time you meet their attacks with loving kindness you use their own weapons against them by reminding them what they actually believe at their core. A calling to love they’re so not obeying that they’re being hypocrites to the point where you’re able to use their own defense against them. Don’t let it be a passive-aggressive attack either, only works if you actually let yourself care about them. Most aren’t bad people, many are there because of the love that is preached, but that’s not what sells news headlines.

121

Aren’t you forgetting the biggest factor? You. The receiver of said information and how YOU process that information. Are you sure you are an objective perceiver?

PS.
### God flowing into the Word

1 Like