Not a debate

I’m putting this in Philosophy because it’s only using the Christian fundamentalists as an example. It slips into “atheist fundamentalist” a couple times, but it could have just as easily used any example of someone who is more interested in defending a point than they are in gaining any insight through discussion. It’s a little loose when it puts Dawkins in the atheist fundamentalist camp, but it doesn’t harp on that. I think basically he gets it right.
Debating fundamentalists]

The article raises some valid points. As a reformed fundamentalist I can understand the mindset, and that is what scares me so much. Facts do not matter to fundamentalists, only belief, which must be defended at all costs. Anything which creates doubt is from Satan, which explains why so many fundies oppose education.

The article raises some valid points. As a reformed fundamentalist I can understand the mindset, and that is what scares me so much. Facts do not matter to fundamentalists, only belief, which must be defended at all costs. Anything which creates doubt is from Satan, which explains why so many fundies oppose education.
Well put Darron and I can relate to that as I am a reformed Fundie myself. I wholly understand why Bill Nye entered the ring with Ken Ham but it would have been better if he hadn't as it gave Ham an international stage to spew his Creationist ideas and plug his projects. He really didn't care about the facts and this is typical of fundamentalists. They truly live in a bubble of faith and that bubble must be broken from the inside only. That's why I decided early on not to debate them even after heated conversations with family members and friends. It just caused confusion and dissension, e.g. "You mean you're not one of us any more"? Actually I thought the article nailed it; try to live a better life and show them by example how you can be "good without God". Debating a fundamentalist of any religious belief is futile, except when discussing personal rights. Then it goes into the political realm, e.g. Freedom from religion. Cap't Jack

Here is a prime example of the convoluted thinking required to accept the Bible literally.
https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2016/02/12/albert-mohler-gravity-waves-are-caused-by-sin/

... a world that is corrupted and affected by sin will actually give us — even through the scientific method — false data that can lead people to false conclusions.
That, in a nutshell, explains how Evangeligcal Christians reject scientific evidence in favor of Bronze Age mythology. Anything that contradicts their beliefs is a result of sin, therefore false.
Here is a prime example of the convoluted thinking required to accept the Bible literally. https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2016/02/12/albert-mohler-gravity-waves-are-caused-by-sin/
... a world that is corrupted and affected by sin will actually give us — even through the scientific method — false data that can lead people to false conclusions.
That, in a nutshell, explains how Evangeligcal Christians reject scientific evidence in favor of Bronze Age mythology. Anything that contradicts their beliefs is a result of sin, therefore false.
Gravity waves are caused by sin. Says it all, don't even need to read any further. Glory bee.

I heard all the specious arguments when I was attending fundie churches. The Theory of Evolution is as likely as a tornado hitting a junkyard and producing a 747. Natural disasters and disease are part of God’s plan. We cannot understand God’s plan any better than an ant can understand human society. Satan has dominion over the Earth, God has dominion over the heavens. Satan placed fossils on Earth to confuse us.
OK, said I. Then where did the light between the galaxies come from?
It is a sin to question God.
Is God trying to deceive us?
Get thee behind me Satan! I pray for God to remove the demon from your soul! (Starts speaking in tongues as I walk out the door and open my eyes to reality.)

Well, Darron, God created the universe 6,000 years ago, with that light already on it’s way here, so it looks to us like it had been travelling for 13.7 billion years, but God just created it that way. Okay? okay.
I saw a YouTube of this surfer guy a long time ago, he starts out saying proof of God is all around us, just look at this ocean and beauty and the fact that I’m getting paid to say things I don’t understand. (Okay, he didn’t say that last part). He went on to say that God has given his rules, therefore, if we choose not to follow them, that’s our problem and God can hand out whatever consequences he wants.

The son of an evangelical preacher weighs in:
Dumb Evangelicals Are Holding the US Hostage]
He confirms what we already surmised: evangelicals try to create their own reality.

Here is a prime example of the convoluted thinking required to accept the Bible literally. https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2016/02/12/albert-mohler-gravity-waves-are-caused-by-sin/
... a world that is corrupted and affected by sin will actually give us — even through the scientific method — false data that can lead people to false conclusions.
That, in a nutshell, explains how Evangeligcal Christians reject scientific evidence in favor of Bronze Age mythology. Anything that contradicts their beliefs is a result of sin, therefore false.
Gravity waves are caused by sin. Says it all, don't even need to read any further. Glory bee. Is that not why we use the term "grave sins". Don't you know that is a derivative from the word *gravity*?
Is that not why we use the term "grave sins". Don't you know that is a derivative from the word *gravity*?
The son of an evangelical preacher weighs in: Dumb Evangelicals Are Holding the US Hostage] He confirms what we already surmised: evangelicals try to create their own reality.
We all create our own reality, though, don't you think? We all rely on deeper narratives composed of frames. Sure, the frames that make up the scientific method and rationality have a much more accurate sense of reality, but there are many who take that Enlightenment Rationalist approach too far as well. An example: I've been having a discussion about evolution with an fundamentalist over the past few days, and he refuses to accept evolutionary theory, despite acknowledging that cognitive dissonance is present. Nothing new here, right? Except, I think it's important to empathize where he's coming from. That doesn't mean condone and agree, but try to understand where the logic is coming from. To him, his "prime truth" are his biblical beliefs and that his deity is the authoritative figure. That has conservative undertones, but that's a separate narrative. If someone is using the frame of the biblical god as the creator, then there's a certain narrative that will unfold. You find a lot of really logical people out there who are religious. Logical in the sense that if you apply that first frame, the logic unfolds naturally. The problem occurs when that initial frame is incorrect, and I think that that's where the real disagreement comes from. If you're posting on a site like this, your primary frame is probably some form of science or the scientific method. I don't think any of us would disagree with the idea that science frame is superior to the evangelical frame, but most of these evangelicals don't see it that way. If you control the frames that people use, you control the neural structures that fire.
The son of an evangelical preacher weighs in: Dumb Evangelicals Are Holding the US Hostage] He confirms what we already surmised: evangelicals try to create their own reality.
We all create our own reality, though, don't you think? We all rely on deeper narratives composed of frames. Sure, the frames that make up the scientific method and rationality have a much more accurate sense of reality, but there are many who take that Enlightenment Rationalist approach too far as well. An example: I've been having a discussion about evolution with an fundamentalist over the past few days, and he refuses to accept evolutionary theory, despite acknowledging that cognitive dissonance is present. Nothing new here, right? Except, I think it's important to empathize where he's coming from. That doesn't mean condone and agree, but try to understand where the logic is coming from. To him, his "prime truth" are his biblical beliefs and that his deity is the authoritative figure. That has conservative undertones, but that's a separate narrative. If someone is using the frame of the biblical god as the creator, then there's a certain narrative that will unfold. You find a lot of really logical people out there who are religious. Logical in the sense that if you apply that first frame, the logic unfolds naturally. The problem occurs when that initial frame is incorrect, and I think that that's where the real disagreement comes from. If you're posting on a site like this, your primary frame is probably some form of science or the scientific method. I don't think any of us would disagree with the idea that science frame is superior to the evangelical frame, but most of these evangelicals don't see it that way. If you control the frames that people use, you control the neural structures that fire. It is possible to put biblical metaphorical texts in a different perspective but which does not attack the concept of a biblical god. A co-worker once asked me about the 6 day creation some 6000 years ago and the 14.7 billion year age of the universe. Instead of trying to disprove the 6/6000 figures I asked her if the bible told her the length of 1 of god's days and if it be possible that 1 of god's days is 2+ billion years and therefore allowed of god's ongoing creative process which we call Evolution. No offense can be taken, because it does not dismiss a long held belief, but allows people to have scientific information which eventually will alter the *interpretation of scripture. Just small steps of enlightenment. In the metaphor of man made from a handfull of clay is actually supportable with chemistry. Clay from rocky planets which also have oxygen and hydrogen can yield a high probability of spontaneous creation of biomolecules and given billions of years have become more complex until we have humans. If the bible is interpreted in such a time context the bible is correct. This is a very compelling lecture by DR Robert Hazen from the Carnegie Institute, which argues for the likelihood that clay, under the right circumstance, might well be the origin of life itself, on earth. My intent is never to offend but to allow for self-discovery and persuasion. Don't attack the bible, but guide the student to think about the metaphors and how they can be reconciled with Science. I am an atheist and I can find metaphors in the bible which I can accept as all-embracing examples of a fundamental universal process. That does not mean I believe in a sentient God. I believe this method of alternative interpretations is called gradualism, and with it eventual freedom from dogma.
If you control the frames that people use, you control the neural structures that fire.
That pretty much nails it. When I attended evangelical churches the preachers all used the same techniques to manipulate their audiences, chief among them framing the world as God vs Satan. Everything else flowed from that frame.

Totally agree SDA and Darron. I would add that the whole point of the scientific method is to break into those neural misfires that everyone has and let those unhelpful connections loosen up a little. This is the framing we need, not a simple science vs religion. Obviously, you use the premises of the scientific method to prove the method works. We are limited as humans and have to start somewhere. What religion misses is, they start at the same place, but when logic and reason get in the way of their dogma, they claim they really started somewhere else and have a whole different way of determining truth.

The son of an evangelical preacher weighs in: Dumb Evangelicals Are Holding the US Hostage] He confirms what we already surmised: evangelicals try to create their own reality.
We all create our own reality, though, don't you think? We all rely on deeper narratives composed of frames. Sure, the frames that make up the scientific method and rationality have a much more accurate sense of reality, but there are many who take that Enlightenment Rationalist approach too far as well. An example: I've been having a discussion about evolution with an fundamentalist over the past few days, and he refuses to accept evolutionary theory, despite acknowledging that cognitive dissonance is present. Nothing new here, right? Except, I think it's important to empathize where he's coming from. That doesn't mean condone and agree, but try to understand where the logic is coming from. To him, his "prime truth" are his biblical beliefs and that his deity is the authoritative figure. That has conservative undertones, but that's a separate narrative. If someone is using the frame of the biblical god as the creator, then there's a certain narrative that will unfold. You find a lot of really logical people out there who are religious. Logical in the sense that if you apply that first frame, the logic unfolds naturally. The problem occurs when that initial frame is incorrect, and I think that that's where the real disagreement comes from. If you're posting on a site like this, your primary frame is probably some form of science or the scientific method. I don't think any of us would disagree with the idea that science frame is superior to the evangelical frame, but most of these evangelicals don't see it that way. If you control the frames that people use, you control the neural structures that fire. It is possible to put biblical metaphorical texts in a different perspective but which does not attack the concept of a biblical god. A co-worker once asked me about the 6 day creation some 6000 years ago and the 14.7 billion year age of the universe. Instead of trying to disprove the 6/6000 figures I asked her if the bible told her the length of 1 of god's days and if it be possible that 1 of god's days is 2+ billion years and therefore allowed of god's ongoing creative process which we call Evolution. No offense can be taken, because it does not dismiss a long held belief, but allows people to have scientific information which eventually will alter the *interpretation of scripture. Just small steps of enlightenment. In the metaphor of man made from a handfull of clay is actually supportable with chemistry. Clay from rocky planets which also have oxygen and hydrogen can yield a high probability of spontaneous creation of biomolecules and given billions of years have become more complex until we have humans. If the bible is interpreted in such a time context the bible is correct. This is a very compelling lecture by DR Robert Hazen from the Carnegie Institute, which argues for the likelihood that clay, under the right circumstance, might well be the origin of life itself, on earth. My intent is never to offend but to allow for self-discovery and persuasion. Don't attack the bible, but guide the student to think about the metaphors and how they can be reconciled with Science. I am an atheist and I can find metaphors in the bible which I can accept as all-embracing examples of a fundamental universal process. That does not mean I believe in a sentient God. I believe this method of alternative interpretations is called gradualism, and with it eventual freedom from dogma. Never heard of gradualism in that context, but I agree. I think it's easy to forget that science isn't always intuitive, so we can assume that others have had the same education as us. Or have read the same books. I was never a fundamentalist, but I would guess that would be really unsettling or terrifying to have your world-view come crashing down around you. What would you believe? Who would you trust? I wouldn't want to be in that situation, but I can empathize. I do think that, from strictly a humanist and empathetic point of view, it's important not to let these people make that transition alone.
If you control the frames that people use, you control the neural structures that fire.
That pretty much nails it. When I attended evangelical churches the preachers all used the same techniques to manipulate their audiences, chief among them framing the world as God vs Satan. Everything else flowed from that frame. It really has that Aristotelian chain of being thing going on, eh? God's at the top, Satan's at the bottom. Morality means being closer to the top, and immorality means being closer to the bottom.
Totally agree SDA and Darron. I would add that the whole point of the scientific method is to break into those neural misfires that everyone has and let those unhelpful connections loosen up a little. This is the framing we need, not a simple science vs religion. Obviously, you use the premises of the scientific method to prove the method works. We are limited as humans and have to start somewhere. What religion misses is, they start at the same place, but when logic and reason get in the way of their dogma, they claim they really started somewhere else and have a whole different way of determining truth.
Yep, this is bang on.