Broken Thinking Skills & Pointless Discussion

We seem to be attracting only the nutters now.
Not all religious believers are nutters, but you wouldn't know it if you came only here.I really don't know why we engage with them anymore, nothing can be achieved, we've heard everything, they don't even provide entertainment, trying to reason with them is just cruel. Never try to teach a pig to sing; it doesn't work and it annoys the pig. You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into. etcThe real problem is that humankind has only recently learned how to reason in quantity. It’s spent many thousands of years not reasoning, relying on superstition, folk stories and doctrine - only a minority of humanity can do it naturally now.I've been reading a few threads on Evolution Fairy Tales, it's an echo chamber for even more of these wing-nuts ruled over by the self-impressed Mike the Wiz. He turns up here from time-to-time to show off his superior knowledge of fallacies. He's a weird one. He knows about logic but he can't apply it. He's a transitional human - the irony. He really thinks that he can think rationally but he can't. Like Faith, he's a motivated thinker, he knows his conclusion is 'therefore God' so everything starts backward and he falls at the first logical fence. egA FoE acolyte provides this pseudo-logical nonsense

quote:

---

P1 - Without God objective moral values would not exist
P2 - Evil exists
C1 - Objective moral values exist (from P2)
C2 - Therefore, God exists (from P1 and C1)

---

So Mike replies with

quote:

---

This seems like a pretty good and strong philosophical argument.

---

Surely even he knows that that's a pile of illogical horse dung?I find this sort of thing very hard to understand. Neither he nor Faith are stupid, they're both reasonably intelligent it's just that their intelligence has been corrupted by the religious disease that prevents rational thought. They can learn the rules of logic and science but break them all the time, perhaps without knowing. (But increasingly I think it's deliberate.) They then go on to accuse those pointing out their errors of being irrational.I suppose it has to be because they're all self-taught and uneducated. They've never had anyone with real training to correct them, they impress each other and that's good enough for them. If you've never properly studied a scientific discipline (or philosophical one for that matter) you have no concept of the sheer volume of real, proper work lying behind all of it and the intellectual rigour applied. I get the impression they think it's just a bunch of people with opinions and they have opinions too so their's are just as valid. They've no experience of violently clever, ultra-knowledgeable people tearing lumps off your work because it lacks evidence, completeness or clarity or simply because it's wrong.They rarely actually understand evidence, but are confident that they do and that their intellect is far beyond others. Juvenissun is the latest to follow this superior, gnomic approach, refusing to provide a full argument, state his position or provide real information, while simultaneously talking down to everyone. He has superior, yet hidden, knowledge and we are obliged to sit at his feet chiselling out a hard won truth from the master.

quote:

---

I give you evidence, a very very strong evidence. However, you may not understand the evidence.
The evidence is: the earth has vast amount of ocean water in contrast to the mass of land.
Can you "reason" on my evidence? I don't believe you can.

---

Total garbage, but he thinks he's so, so clever. It's actually a form of trolling. But there's no moderation on this site anymore and we're so grateful for any discussion that we allow him his plinth.He's also a fan of the patronising teacher approach that so many of them seem to exhibit. I think it's from the priest in the pulpit - they get so used to being the leader of the uncritical pack. They have egos the size of a small planet. At least two of them here think they're writing science books. Creationist after creationist comes here knowing - just knowing - that they can disprove evolution using pseudo-science and homespun logic. We tell them that that's Nobel prize work and they agree, they're up for it!Many of them have learned some of the language of science but totally misuse it - like Mike with his faux-logic and fallacies. Here's one of the biggest idiots on FoE

quote:

---

Redblood cells AND Carbon 14 found in the SAME Dinosaurremainsare evidence for the recentflood ofNoah!

---

When someone challenges him he replies

quote:

---

It is called CORROBORATING HARD DATA that confirm that Dinosaurs are 1000s and NOT 100 million years old..

​

It looks like God and hisSon were right about the worldwide flood of Noah.. Something you might want to think about.... Or not.. I dont really care what you think anymore.. Best wishes..

---

They take a finding from real science, fail to understand it, or deliberately misrepresent it, then claim it as proof for a biblical story. It's hard to know where to start with this kind of dishonesty and ignorance.A big part of their certainty is that many consider themselves 'saved'. Despite their book telling them that no one can know that. Many/most also think that god talks to them. I suppose that is the ultimate 'evidence' into which everything else must fit regardless of how objectively wrong it is proven to be.But why being born again, saved and having god talk to you means that the earth is 6,000 old is beyond me, and why seeing that incontrovertible error in others, it doesn't make those that god also talks to think 'hang on, how can that be, God's saying different, contradictory, things to him than me?' I really don't know.YECs are one thing but the pure batshit crazy are another. Why do religions attract so many plain loonies? Our current contender for loonie of the board is Base12

quote:

---

EYES = ELECTRONS = SPIRIT
Not convinced?
The Word of God teaches Truth...

---

Somehow I fail to find that convincing of anything other than psychosis.Having spent several hours reading threads on FoE I really struggled to continue to read the posts of the YECs. It's really hard to read because it offends the intellect; I imagine they think the same reading the explanations of the scientists and atheists. That's also hard to understand. The two sides are not equivalent. The science side can often fairly simply demonstrate how a particular fact is true while the other simply denies the fact with no understanding of how the fact was derived. So you get the situation demonstrated perfectly here...Bot Verification... where the YEC is denying something using 'science' that he doesn't understand and is, as they say, not even wrong.'This gap can not be bridged without education because without education these people 'know not what they say'. They think they're using science but they're not because they don't know what science is, they've never been exposed to it, never experienced it and their egos are so large that they think their armchair theorising *is* science.I don't think that there's much to be done about this except educate, educate, educate and let a lot of time go by.

Thread copied here from the Broken Thinking Skills & Pointless Discussion thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.FoE = Fairytales of Evolution??? aka Evolution Fairytales.AdminnemooseusEdited by Adminnemooseus, : To FoE or not to FoE, that is the question.

I personally feel that I learn a lot here in regards to being exposed to the critical thinking skills that many of you take for granted. Yes, I believe that God talks to me, though very rarely and often quite subtly. It is very rarely perceived as an audible voice but more of an epiphany...an impression. It often happens when I first awaken from the completion of a sleep cycle and just coming out of REM sleep and going back to shallow consciousness. I am sure there is a scientific explanation that need not necessitate God, so I wont bother trying to somehow prove that it is He. Message 82Yes, Mikey is unique. He is not as prone to commentary on current events and politics as was Faith, however. Faith was an extreme and rare example of the whole package. She has more posts at EvC than anyone else here, and anyone perusing our archives will see and hear plenty of her! She ultimately got banned from our forum due to the seriousness of COVID 19 and her refusing to stop spreading false and potentially dangerous misinformation on a psuedo-scientific rumor for a "cure". Message 83 Note Tangles exchange with me here.

quote:

---

The only rational way to treat people who believe things that are clearly untrue - like invisible snakes biting them - is to try to help them realize their error. What we don't do is teach the efficacy of invisible snake venom to our medical students.

---

Look, in regards to Creationism, I am but a Cosmological Creationist. I believe that God exists and is the original source of creation . Biblical Creationism and ID never held much interest for me. Keep in mind that we are, after all, Evolution versus Creationism. Broken down further, we are Evidence Based Thinking vs Rational/Irrational Belief based thinking. Loons are necessary on a forum such as this. They provide an opportunity for contrasting and comparing thought processes.Note our exchange beginning here: Message 85 He sent me to interact with you. I will admit that I could do a better job. Perhaps I need more critical thinking skills...which might then mean that He sent me here in order to learn to throw Him away, as jar often suggests. I think that just as Jesus said that the poor will always be with us, it is true also that the loons will always be with us.And I will admit that I am guilty of having a big ego at times. Edited by Phat, : spellcheck

Even liberal Christians can use appallingly bad reasoning. Like GDR’s claim that third person references should be taken as evidence of authorship (or his whining when the silliness of it was pointed out). Or the whole Not the Planet thread where the ignorance of the ancient Hebrews regarding the Earth was supposed to prove that Noah’s Flood was meant to be a local flood.And it isn’t only Christians or even religionists, remember Crashfrog’s argument that Jesus didn’t exist because we didn’t have a Roman record of his execution?

Of course we have better answers than god talking to you, but that aside, why does the god that talks to you say different and contradictory things to the other people? The issue is that the loons are always believers. That should tell you something.

There really is a Christian Cult of Ignorance and it has created its own parallel education system and media system and accreditation system and broadcast system and economic system and political system.It is ubiquitous and pervasive throughout the US and also totally divorced from reality, evidence, reasoning and thinking.And in just over two months we will see whether or not it totally takes over the US.

Interesting that you only show up to do your job when a skeptic is the op.

I was a religious nutter... Admittedly, it takes time to break down the sting of cognitive dissonance... Its a very painful process. Most people dig in their heels when confronted with something that challenges their worldview, but you might be surprised what is actually getting through.via GIPHY

Most people don't like the thought of them disintegrating into nothingness. They can conceive a time when they did not exist, but now that they are here to think of a time where they return to nothing is difficult. Their entire view of life is within their own mind. So what is existence outside of it? This consciousness they are experiencing must therefore go on forever.... through the "soul."Would we exist if our parents did not have sexual intercourse? What if it was a different spermatazoa that reached the egg faster than the one that fertilized your mother's egg? What if it was the egg that was fertilized the month before her last period? If your mother met a different man, would you still be you, just a different version of you? Would you still be you if your father met another woman and you would be a different version of you? Look how different even siblings can be. Same parents, different gametes. Endless combinations coming from two sources of genetic material. We are all products of chance, lest we believe that god pulls the strings... and if god pulls the strings then there is no freewill. Does Mikey think about things like this? At the end of the day they don't like the thought of being tossed about randomly at the mercy of the waves. Its more palatable to think that there's some grand, master plan. Fortuitousness is too..... fortuitous. Faith, ironically by those random gametes merging, likely with a bit of nurturing, is now set in her ways... she will always find a way to wiggle around the obvious. Its easier for her to see you as an impediment placed in her way to prove her Fallen world theory and the hands of the devil steering you her way to test her as Job was tested... ultimately for her it is God telling Abraham to kill his son and having the faith to go through with it... and at the last second god changes the child to a sacrificial lamb. Stubborness is viewed as steadfastness to her... we just see it as willful and deliberate ignorance. What is Faith without her faith? She doesn't know and she's terrified to find out. Its a monologue that they choose to think is a dialogue. Because if portions of the bible are errant then how can you be sure which parts are fables inserted by man and which parts are perfectly preserved by the hand and will of God? I mean, its so obvious.... What does Habbukkuk have to do with anything, historical or spiritual, in the modern age? Isn't super obvious that it was written for 2nd century Jews from the biased perspective of 2nd century Jews? But they will find a way to ensure that its relevant because without that belief they aren't tethered to anything.So they have to believe its inerrant, and if it is and there are genealogies, they have to subtract backwards and come up with the timeline provided by almighty god. And then you just make the evidence conform to what the book says instead of following the evidence to its logical conclusion without any bias.But to the question of what point is it if they never seem to change their mind.... some do. Some never do. Either way when we communicate with one another things are imprinted in us. We are learning different perspectives. There's beauty in that. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

The question of Creation vs Evolution really has been settled and creation lost, has been tossed onto the trash heap of really silly fantasies.All that is left in opposition to the fact of Evolution and also over about ten years old are the liars for fun and profit, the willfully dumber than a read brick and the batshit crazy.

Why cant it be Creation and evolution? You will never convince me that a Creator of all seen and unseen didnt start it all, and is personified through Jesus Christ but I am not a Biblical Creationist.As I have said before, I am but a Cosmological Creationist.

I think we have a winner!If a Creator did indeed create the universe, then He would have created all the natural processes operating within it. If one believes in such a Creator (which I interpret your "Cosmological Creationist" as saying), then whatever results from those natural processes, including the origin of life, only affirms the Work of the Creator. I often refer to this view as "actual creationism".Actual creationism accepts the Creation as it is. An actual creationist would consider the physical universe to be part of the Creation -- you might call the physical universe a proper subset of the Creation. Science studies the physical universe, mainly how it works. Under actual creationism, there is nothing that science could discover that would or could disprove the Creator: not only does science not attempt to venture into the supernatural (because there's no way to deal with the supernatural in science nor to be able to make any possible use of supernaturalistic explanations) but the physical universe is as it is and that's what science deals with.Evolution properly defined (ie, as defined in science) is part of science and describes how life works in the physical universe. I even offer a simple definition of evolution as being all the consequences of life doing what life does. Evolution is confined to the physical universe and has nothing to do with anything supernatural. Therefore, there is no inherent conflict between Creation and evolution. The only way that any conflict could arise is if you misdefine evolution as being something that it is not or if you make contrary-to-fact demands about the physical universe. Actual creationists have no reason to do either thing. Rather, both are done routinely by the other kind of "creationist", which is the only source of all the conflict in their artificially created "controversy".The entire "creation/evolution controversy" problem lies in a narrowly sectarian viewpoint having usurped the name, "creationist", from all other creationists including the actual ones. These creationists -- who include YECs, "creation science", ID, and many OEDs -- dictate to the Creator exactly how He had created, or at the very least forbid Him for using natural processes. To them, any evidence of something, such as the origin of life, having resulted from natural processes serves to disprove God.These creationists reject the Creation with their demands that it must be different from what it actually is. Furthermore, they promote a theology which effectively teaches that if the physical universe is as it actually is, then that disproves God; eg, John Morris (now President of the ICR) saying, "If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning." The earth is indeed more than 10,000 years old, so Scripture has no meaning. And if Scripture has no meaning, then you must throw your Bible in the trash and became a self-destructive hedonistic atheist and serial ax murderer, etc. An entire set of extremely stupid teachings which create all kinds of booby traps to destroy their followers' faith and lives all to be triggered by the realization that their false claims are indeed false. What a stupid waste!And of course they misdefine and misrepresent evolution in too many bizarre ways to keep track of. Basically, they make a multitude of false claims about evolution, most of which are twisted to say that become the false claim that if evolution is true then God does not exist.Destruction of faith because of a false theology. 
So, I'm an atheist and agnostic. The agnostic part realizes that there is no way for us to actually know anything about the supernatural, not even whether it even exists, but rather we are left with assuming things about the supernatural, including whether it even exists. The atheist part merely says that I do not believe in those supernatural entities which would be the gods, more specifically that I cannot accept what other people claim to "know" about the gods (because, being agnostic, I know full well that they cannot actually know that). On top of that, I accept that the physical universe is as it is and that science is how we learn about the physical universe and that science is incapable of determining anything about the supernatural, including whether it even exists (hence agnosticism).You believe in the supernatural and in a specific god/gods. I do not know where you stand on agnosticism (yes, theistic agnosticism is a thing); ie, do you realize that you cannot know with objective certainty so you choose to believe in a specific theology based solely on faith and not on certainty. Or not. Either way, I trust that you accept the physical universe as it actually is and that science is the study of the physical universe and cannot speak about the supernatural.So when it comes to reality (ie, the physical universe) we are or should be in agreement. There is no conflict between Creation and evolution.

Double PostEdited by Phat, : No reason given.

I think that by and large I agree with you. There is no objective way to know about the possibility or actuality of supernatural things. SAome prefer to use the definition unexplained rather than supernatural. Some may say I prefer fantasy over reality. Some would say I was mentally ill. I feel fine and don't even think about such things on a daily basis.But I will state while placing my hand on a Bible that to the best of my understanding, an unexplained realm exists and is observable by me. I trust that some day all will have the opportunity to see it also.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I think that those are two different ideas. When something is unexplained, that only means that we have not found the explanation yet. Many things in the natural universe are unexplained, but they can be explained eventually because we are able to observe and study them.If something is supernatural, then it is outside the natural universe and hence outside of our ability to study it. We can never explain them because we are not able to observe and study them.That's a big difference.

You don't need to feel ill, delusions don't necessarily make you feel unwell; often they're very comforting. Particularly the imaginary friend kind. You come here everyday and talk about what you've been researching, reading and talking about.