just how head strong are creationists

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
User avatar
Donnageddon
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1030
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:07 am

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Donnageddon » Sat Aug 18, 2012 2:41 am

CMurdock wrote:I've written an article about why Jane Roberts could not have faked Seth, but I haven't posted it on my blog yet.


Please hurry. I cannot wait not to read it.
My name is not Donna.

CMurdock
Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby CMurdock » Sat Aug 18, 2012 2:49 am

Yes, I'm sure. But I already know what your reaction will be. You won't discern any proof, and you won't find my arguments logical, yada yada yada.

User avatar
Donnageddon
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1030
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:07 am

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Donnageddon » Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:58 am

CMurdock wrote:Yes, I'm sure. But I already know what your reaction will be. You won't discern any proof, and you won't find my arguments logical, yada yada yada.


Only if I read it.
My name is not Donna.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8098
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Poodle » Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:23 pm

CMurdock wrote:Isn't that self-evident? Doesn't it make sense that I would put my faith in a psychic personality that doesn't sound mundane, petty and arrogant, rather than in one who does?

I've written an article about why Jane Roberts could not have faked Seth, but I haven't posted it on my blog yet.


Why would that be self-evident? This is why I asked the question. My impression is that you have what amounts to a simple personal preference for Seth over Alexander, even though Alexander's credentials are exactly the same as Seth's. Surely being "supernatural" does not preclude childishness?

CMurdock
Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby CMurdock » Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:36 pm

Now you're asking me to argue the obvious. In judging the value of the source, the quality of the channelled material is central. If you had a choice between two politicians, one of which had negative qualities, and the other of which didn't, which would you choose?

I accept psychic phenomenon as being real; that isn't the issue.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8098
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Poodle » Sat Aug 18, 2012 6:20 pm

OK - so it's back to the original question. What criteria do you use to assess the channeled material in order to judge the value of the source?

And, of course, you know I'm going to point out that politicians, sadly, do exist on the same plane as do I.

CMurdock
Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby CMurdock » Sat Aug 18, 2012 7:21 pm

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but let me say this: If you find a source of knowledge and information which is credible and convincing, and which changes your life with its profound wisdom, then you had better believe in the source, and in the mechanism by which the information gets to you. "The proof of the pudding is in the tasting" -- are you familiar with that adage? It means, "If the pudding tastes excellent, the ingredients must be good" (of course, that expression evolved before the age of modern additives). Where the Seth material is concerned, the proof is in the readings.

My article about why the Seth material isn't fraudulent won't be ready for a while, but I can give you a preview (none of which, however, would convince a die-hard atheist).

* The Seth material introduced a large number of new concepts to the discussion about religion; it was highly original. It provides explanations for things which no one else has attempted to explain. To the best of my knowledge, Seth is the only individual who has ever talked about God's beginnings. The concept of pantheism has been around for a while, but Seth is the only one who explained precisely how God and the universe can be one and the same. On a more mundane level, Seth provides an explanation why all matter is made of energy (a religious explanation, not a scientific one).

* The Seth material constitutes a complete theology unto itself, which is no small accomplishment.

* There was great consistency to the readings. Over 20 years, Seth never contradicted himself.

* The readings were given in a very open and transparent way; there were many witnesses. Contriving the readings would have required secrecy.

* Roberts didn't read from notes or anything like that during the sessions. The sessions were spoken slowly so that her husband, Robert Butts, could transcribe them in his home-made shorthand. The slowness with which the material was given would have caused a normal person to lose her train of thought. Entire books (books which read very well indeed) were dictated in this fashion. Seth could jump from one subject to another, and then jump back to the original subject in a seamless way.

* A person who has so much wisdom to impart as Jane Roberts did (when speaking as Seth) could not also be dishonest enough to falsify the sessions. You can't be wise and stupid at the same time.

* The effort involved in falsifying 20 years of readings, resulting in more than 20 books, would have been so enormous that the fraud would have collapsed under its own weight long before Roberts died.

* Robert Butts added his own copious notes to all the Seth books (in which he described Jane's actions and behavior while in trance, etc.). The amount of work involved in falsifying the notes would have been huge in itself.

* Footnotes were added to all the books in order to clarify certain points and provide additional information to the reader (about various topics that Roberts mentioned while in trance); if they were faking the whole thing, they wouldn't have gone to the trouble of annotating the books.

* There are distinct differences between Roberts' diction and Seth's diction. There is no spill-over of Roberts' attitudes into the Seth material.

* Roberts would have achieved more fame and monetary success if she had pretended that Seth's ideas were hers and presented them to the world in the guise of a philosopher instead of as a psychic; it is because she presented the material to the world as a psychic that she gets no respect from scientists, philosophers and other mainstream groups.

* As with Cayce, there is some objective evidence that Seth knew things he couldn't have known. Right off the top of my head, I'm reminded of the session in which Seth told a visitor that she should not eat so much lettuce. Unknown to Roberts, the visitor was in the habit of eating whole heads of lettuce because she thought it was healthful.

Now, none of this is proof in itself, but taken together, it creates a pretty convincing picture -- well, a pretty convincing picture to people who don't demand absurd levels of objective evidence.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby xouper » Mon Aug 20, 2012 11:08 am

CMurdock wrote:Now, none of this is proof in itself, but taken together, it creates a pretty convincing picture -- well, a pretty convincing picture to people who don't demand absurd levels of objective evidence.

It is not absurd. It is in fact the most effective epistemology we have.

If anything is absurd, it is your creduloid standards of evidence. According to your standards, homeopathy, reiki, astrology, dowsing, and many other absurd ideas are all true. What poppycock.

Your standards of evidence are unable to distinguish between what works and what doesn't work. I'm sorry, but that's clearly more absurd than my standards of evidence.

In any case, since you seem to enjoy Jane Roberts books, you might also like Robert Monroe and Michael Newton, if you haven't already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Monroe

Journeys Out of the Body (1971)
Far Journeys (1985)
Ultimate Journey (1994)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Newton_(hypnotist)

Journey of Souls (1994)
Destiny of Souls (2000)

I've read them all and found them quite fascinating.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19430
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:53 pm

Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3450
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Lausten » Mon Aug 20, 2012 2:53 pm

who cares who said this wrote:none of this is proof in itself, but taken together

I love this line of reasoning. It is the line of reasoning that started me on a path to living in the real world. I'm sure I had heard it many times throughout my life, and probably even used it myself. The time that it hit me like a ton of bricks was in an argument about 9/11. The guy who presented it is someone who just likes to win arguments, doesn't care much about facts. He was on the side of government conspiracy, FYI. I refuted a couple of his arguments and he paused for a second, and said, "too many questions... there are just too many unanswerable questions... it adds up to something fishy". I knew no rational argument could convince him at that point.

Since then I have learned to watch for this coming and be the first to set the boundaries. I ask for sources, which often come via email. When I get back with that person face-to-face I say, "I don't accept your sources, they don't support your argument and even contradict what you actually said, I'm not going to discuss this with you if you aren't willing to be rational."

If each individual piece of evidence is not proof, then you can't bundle the evidence and claim that the sheer size of the bundle makes it proof.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19430
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:32 pm

I got banned from a Facebook Creation Ministries page because I pointed that their boost that science had proven there was an Adam and Eve left out the facts that both lived and died more than 70,000 years ago. The fatal flaw of any creationist argument is the facts concerning what they're talking about.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Monster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4968
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Monster » Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:19 pm

CMurdock wrote:If you find a source of knowledge and information which is credible and convincing, and which changes your life with its profound wisdom, then you had better believe in the source, and in the mechanism by which the information gets to you.

Wait a minute. What if someone lied to you, but his words were inspiring and very convincing and it changes your life with its profound wisdom? Then you should believe the lies and the source? I sincerely hope your answer is "no".
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

CMurdock
Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby CMurdock » Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:25 pm

Lausten wrote:
who cares who said this wrote:none of this is proof in itself, but taken together

I love this line of reasoning. It is the line of reasoning that started me on a path to living in the real world. I'm sure I had heard it many times throughout my life, and probably even used it myself. The time that it hit me like a ton of bricks was in an argument about 9/11. The guy who presented it is someone who just likes to win arguments, doesn't care much about facts. He was on the side of government conspiracy, FYI. I refuted a couple of his arguments and he paused for a second, and said, "too many questions... there are just too many unanswerable questions... it adds up to something fishy". I knew no rational argument could convince him at that point.

Since then I have learned to watch for this coming and be the first to set the boundaries. I ask for sources, which often come via email. When I get back with that person face-to-face I say, "I don't accept your sources, they don't support your argument and even contradict what you actually said, I'm not going to discuss this with you if you aren't willing to be rational."

If each individual piece of evidence is not proof, then you can't bundle the evidence and claim that the sheer size of the bundle makes it proof.

I'm most interested in answering you, Lausen.

You don't seem to understand that we don't live in a world of irrefutable evidence. Nothing, really, can be proven. For example, we have a theory of atoms, but has it been proven? No. No one can see the elements of an atom. Yet the circumstantial evidence that atoms have this structure -- nucleus containing protons and neutrons, with electrons orbiting the nucleus, held together by electromagnetism -- is overpowering because of the circumstantial evidence, which includes the verifiable behavior of atoms which aligns with the theory. But will we ever be able to verify the structure of an atom with our eyes? Probably not. My point is: science accepts the theory of atoms as fact because of the strong evidence.

Now, the evidence that Roberts and her husband Butts did not fabricate the Seth material is so strong that I accept it -- but none of the evidence constitutes proof (as with the theory of atoms). I am essentially doing the same thing that scientists do, but in the area of religion. All the indications are there that the Seth material is authentic.

You see, nothing, really, is provable.

What about this? "I think, therefore I am." Is that acceptable to you as solid evidence of your existence? It is entirely subjective. Do you accept subjective evidence at all? I am guessing that as a "skeptic", you don't. So how do you know that you exist? Oh! But in this case, you DO accept subjective evidence! So why won't you accept subjective evidence in other areas?

Even if we could see atoms with our eyes, that would still amount to subjective evidence, since seeing is a subjective experience. You see, everything is subject, even the supposedly objective things. We live in a subjective universe. Objectivity is an illusion. It is a collaboration of people who have agreed to accept their subjective experiences as objective proof. Yet if you had read Seth's statements on reality, you wouldn't accept any of the evidence of your senses. The Seth material is actually quite profound.

Xouper, you wouldn't be reading all that spiritual stuff if you didn't want to believe in it. You are a disappointed acolyte. I once heard an atheist in an interview say, "There is nothing that atheists like to talk about more than God." Atheists as a group are astonishingly transparent, from their fascination with things they supposedly don't believe in, to their insistence on proof that doesn't exist.

My goodness, I just figured out what is going on! Since 99% of what we all believe stems from our childhood experiences, I just realized that atheism is a form of rebellion against one's parents. Like a child who refuses to eat in order to be obstinate -- though he is hungry -- atheists refuse to believe in anything as an act of rebellion, though they really want to believe. What I have been picking up from this group is a great deal of immaturity, and now I know why. Well, it turns out that my visits to this forum have been worthwhile after all!
Last edited by CMurdock on Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Monster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4968
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Monster » Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:27 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:I got banned from a Facebook Creation Ministries page because I pointed that their boost that science had proven there was an Adam and Eve left out the facts that both lived and died more than 70,000 years ago. The fatal flaw of any creationist argument is the facts concerning what they're talking about.

THAT got you banned??? It seems very ordinary to me. Especially the part where you're implying that Adam and Eve actually existed. I would have thought that someone positing that would be welcome at such a place.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

User avatar
Monster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4968
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Monster » Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:29 pm

CMurdock wrote:My goodness, I just figured out what is going on! Since 99% of what we all believe stems from our childhood experiences, I just realized that atheism is a form of rebellion against one's parents. Like a child who refuses to eat in order to be obstinate (though he is hungry), atheists refuse to believe in anything as an act of rebellion, though they really want to believe. Well, it turns out that my visits to this forum have been worthwhile after all!

You realize that that makes no sense, right?
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

CMurdock
Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby CMurdock » Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:33 pm

If you know anything about psychology, it makes P-E-R-F-E-C-T sense. I really came here seeking to understand atheists, and I've gotten what I was looking for.

User avatar
Monster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4968
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Monster » Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:46 pm

CMurdock wrote:If you know anything about psychology, it makes P-E-R-F-E-C-T sense. I really came here seeking to understand atheists, and I've gotten what I was looking for.

I know plenty about psychology. It makes no sense. If you think your point of view is a psychological one, then it looks like you're a Freudian. Freud was a quack.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby xouper » Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:09 pm

CMurdock wrote:You don't seem to understand that we don't live in a world of irrefutable evidence. Nothing, really, can be proven.

Here's a simple and definitive experiment you can try that will prove to you gravity is real. Go to the top of a tall building and step off. Do you 1) float away harmlessly or 2) do you plummet to the ground or 3) something else? Let me know the results.

I'm not going to bother dissecting your bad analogies about atoms.

CMurdock wrote:What about this? "I think, therefore I am." Is that acceptable to you as solid evidence of your existence? It is entirely subjective.

Another flawed analogy. There is nothing subjective about the conclusion in "I think therefore I am." The conclusion is inescapable regardless whether the initial perception is subjective. The point of Descartes's argument was to refute the notion that all knowledge is subjective and open to doubt. And he succeeded. He showed that the subjective perception has an objective existence. Try denying that you exist. You cannot. There is no valid way to say your own existence is subjective, because in doing so, you have proven you exist.

CMurdock wrote:Xouper, you wouldn't be reading all that spiritual stuff if you didn't want to believe in it.

That contradicts your earlier accusation that I didn't want to believe any of it. How can you possibly know what is in my head? You cannot. You can only make assumptions and guesses based on your own incomplete information. In both cases you are mistaken.

CMurdock wrote:You are a disappointed acolyte.

You're a moron. See how that works? You call me names, I call you names. Is that really the way you want to interact with people here?

CMurdock wrote:I once heard an atheist in an interview say, "There is nothing that atheists like to talk about more than God." Atheists as a group are astonishingly transparent, from their fascination with things they supposedly don't believe in, to their insistence on proof that doesn't exist.

And from that you think all atheists are like that? You really are a moron.

CMurdock wrote:My goodness, I just figured out what is going on! Since 99% of what we all believe stems from our childhood experiences, I just realized that atheism is a form of rebellion against one's parents. Like a child who refuses to eat in order to be obstinate -- though he is hungry -- atheists refuse to believe in anything as an act of rebellion, though they really want to believe. What I have been picking up from this group is a great deal of immaturity, and now I know why.

Wow, what a towering intellect it must take to mistakenly infer that you have come to some great insight about others when in fact all you have been doing is seeing things through your own prejudices and ignorances, just as Seth has said.

CMurdock wrote:If you know anything about psychology, it makes P-E-R-F-E-C-T sense. I really came here seeking to understand atheists, and I've gotten what I was looking for.

Your comments remind me of this: http://xoup.net/we-see-the-world

You may have gotten what you were looking for, but it certainly is not an understanding of atheists. Since you mention psychology, I assume you're familiar with Freudian Projection?

The fact that you think you now understand atheists based only on your short and limited experience on this forum tells me a whole lot about your inability to think rationally. Well done. Thanks for revealing that to us.

CMurdock
Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby CMurdock » Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:58 pm

I don't have a short and limited experience with atheists. I'm 62; I've known dozens of them -- but never fully understood them.

I'm coming to an understanding now. I think that atheists fall into groups.

-- atheism as an act of resistance against mentally intrusive parents
-- atheism as a comfort for those who are frightened of the unknown
-- atheism resulting from a huge disappointment in God, as in Holocaust survivors
-- atheism as a reaction to the idea of an authority figure (God) controlling our lives
-- atheism simply as the result of skepticism (but these are the agnostics)

Agnosticism I can respect. The agnostic is saying, "I'm not convinced" and "I don't really care." But the die-hard atheists are the ones who have their emotions invested in their atheism. Their atheism is somehow tied to their identities. If, as I believe, some of them are reacting to overly intrusive parents, atheism is a way of separating themselves, of being independent. To give in to the religious "hogwash" that they reject becomes synonymous with giving in to the parents, and in the process they would lose themselves.

There are more groups of atheists than the ones I mentioned above, but I'll figure it all out eventually.
Last edited by CMurdock on Mon Jul 14, 2014 10:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby xouper » Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:11 pm

CMurdock wrote:I don't have a short and limited experience with atheists.

Your comment specifically refers to the atheists on this forum, which you have only had a short and limited experience with. You said, "I really came here seeking to understand atheists." You are either way too quick to pass judgement, or you are lying. Either way . . . not a good reflection on you.

CMurdock wrote: I'm 62; I've known dozens of them -- but never fully understood them.

And you still don't.

You listed some absurd stereotypes that do not apply to most atheists. Furthermore, you don't have an accurate understanding of the word agnostic either.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19430
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:14 pm

Monster wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:I got banned from a Facebook Creation Ministries page because I pointed that their boost that science had proven there was an Adam and Eve left out the facts that both lived and died more than 70,000 years ago. The fatal flaw of any creationist argument is the facts concerning what they're talking about.

THAT got you banned??? It seems very ordinary to me. Especially the part where you're implying that Adam and Eve actually existed. I would have thought that someone positing that would be welcome at such a place.

They were claiming that mitochondrial Eve and Adam proved Genesis was an accurate account of history. They didn't like it when I pointed out what AIG had skipped over.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

CMurdock
Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby CMurdock » Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:16 am

Xouper, this "moron" thinks that you, xouper, do not understand yourself. Once I came to that conclusion, our conversation was over.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19430
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:47 am

Wow, how do I achieve such honor?
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19630
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby scrmbldggs » Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:49 am

:lol:
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Monster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4968
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Monster » Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:59 am

CMurdock wrote:Xouper, this "moron" thinks that you, xouper, do not understand yourself. Once I came to that conclusion, our conversation was over.

xouper is correct. All of your conclusions are wrong. You've been told that multiple times, so it looks like you're not actually interested in understanding any of us.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

CMurdock
Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby CMurdock » Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:51 am

I've arrived at a lot of conclusions on this thread. You'll have to be more specific.

However, I'm losing my patience for the blind-following-the-blind arguments here -- the arguments that go in circles, the refusal to acknowledge any personal truths, etc. You folks don't understand what faith is, and no one is willing to admit that their emotions are influencing their views. At least I have the honesty to do that.

This is Psychology 101: People decide what to believe according to their feelings and temperaments, and then their beliefs cement their feelings. All this talk about needing proof and objective evidence is just a pretense.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19630
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby scrmbldggs » Tue Aug 21, 2012 3:05 am

CMurdock wrote:I've arrived at a lot of conclusions on this thread. You'll have to be more specific.

However, I'm losing my patience for the blind-following-the-blind arguments here -- the arguments that go in circles, the refusal to acknowledge any personal truths, etc. You folks don't understand what faith is, and no one is willing to admit that their emotions are influencing their views. At least I have the honesty to do that.

This is Psychology 101: People decide what to believe according to their feelings and temperaments, and then their beliefs cement their feelings. All this talk about needing proof and objective evidence is just a pretense.


CMurdock wrote:But the die-hard atheists are the ones who have their emotions invested in their atheism. Their atheism is somehow tied to their identities.


Unlike Believers?:
CMurdock wrote: So no, believing isn't a choice. It arises from our emotions


One might as well say: But the die-hard Believers are the ones who have their emotions invested in their belief. Their belief is somehow tied to their identities.

You mention faith: "You folks don't understand what faith is". I have great faith in evidence. I also can think myself into a happy state (or the opposite) easily. But that does not change facts. You might want to look to neuroscience for some answers?
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby xouper » Tue Aug 21, 2012 5:08 am

CMurdock wrote:Xouper, this "moron" thinks that you, xouper, do not understand yourself. Once I came to that conclusion, our conversation was over.

Oh, well, pardon me. I did not know that a prerequisite to having a conversation with you was that a person must "understand themselves". Why are you still here then?

In any case, I find it amusing all the highly judgmental accusations you make about the people here, after only a limited exposure. Classic Freudian projection. Psychology 101, indeed. Seth would be proud of your self-righteous behavior, I'm sure.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby xouper » Tue Aug 21, 2012 5:19 am

CMurdock wrote:I'm losing my patience for the blind-following-the-blind arguments here

Then why did you create this reality for yourself? You have only yourself to blame.

If you're frustrated, perhaps it's because reality isn't living up to your expectations.
Emotion follows belief.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19630
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby scrmbldggs » Tue Aug 21, 2012 5:59 am

xouper wrote:Then why did you create this reality for yourself? You have only yourself to blame.


Good one Xoup! But wouldn't that mean (according to that philosophy) you/we did the same? :mrgreen:

A taste of my reality: In my world, everyone is free to believe as they do. What I don't approve of is approaching others and telling them what they should recognize, think or feel. I do not go around and tell people "I don't subscribe to any belief in any god or any religion and you, too, should not believe. Let me talk you out of your convictions and set you free!"

CMurdock, I have the feeling you aren't a bad chap at all. But maybe not on your turf and somewhat defensive?
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby xouper » Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:38 am

scrmbldggs wrote:
xouper wrote:Then why did you create this reality for yourself? You have only yourself to blame.

Good one Xoup! But wouldn't that mean (according to that philosophy) you/we did the same? :mrgreen:

Shhhh!! Let him stew a while in his own self-made contradiction.



But yes, you are correct. That is the fatal flaw in Jane Roberts philosophy.

scrmbldggs wrote:CMurdock, I have the feeling you aren't a bad chap at all. But maybe not on your turf and somewhat defensive?

I assume he's a decent fellow who wasn't prepared for the level of criticism his arguments got here. I could be wrong, of course.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3450
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Lausten » Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:32 pm

CMurdock wrote:My goodness, I just figured out what is going on!

So precious. Bless your heart. And you're only 62, I'm so happy for you.

I had these kinds of conversations when I was 19. I was in a very protected environment, called college, doing a lot of mind altering, umm, things, and contemplating candle wax and leaves floating on water. Eventually I had to get a job and pay for insurance and didn't have much time for that stuff anymore. Fortunately, before I screwed up anybody else's life too bad, I learned about how we, the human race, figured out how to figure stuff out. Descartes was only the beginning, actually there were many before him, but forget that for the moment. When I think about who I am or what I am, I don't go to the "New Age" section at Barnes and Noble, I go to the science section. Science it finding out some fascinating things about how thoughts bubble up and how they are integrated with our emotions. I think you would really enjoy learning about it.

But first, look up words like "axiom". That's how we know things. Science accepted your point a long time ago. The point that we can't know anything with 100% certainity. So, they said, let's start with some basic principles, like we exist. Let's assume that there are laws that are consistent throughout the universe and that we can test hypothesis against that universe and check our results and learn from it and build on that. From that basic idea, and about 1,000 years of study, we made it to Mars. That's way more amazing than any boring book about Seth.

You and I agree that "that we don't live in a world of irrefutable evidence", but then you turn around and make up a system where somehow you end up choosing to listen to a voice in someone else's head. I've tried lots of systems like that and they all failed. So now I use the system that cured polio.

Here's a little something from my blog about neuroscience and Descarte:

Chris Mooney recently laid out much of this in an article in Mother Jones magazine. He links to many studies and describes how this relates to the recent apocalypse prediction. He sums the article up with, “The upshot: All we can currently bank on is the fact that we all have blinders in some situations.” If we are going to work together on the biggest scientific problems that have ever faced humankind, we will need to be aware of the emotional reactions we illicit in others as we breach topics of recycling, global warming, gas mileage and religious pluralism.

In an October 1994 essay in Scientific American titled Descartes' Error and the Future of Human Life, Antonio R Damasio head of the neurology department at the University of Iowa College of Medicine found similar parallels with his work and the words of philosophers from the era of Descartes’ “I think therefore I am”.

It is intriguing to realize that Pascal
prefigured this idea within the same 17th
century that brought us Cartesian dualism,
when he said "It is on this knowledge of the
heart and of the instincts that reason must
establish itself and create the foundation for
all its discourse." We are beginning to
uncover the pertinent neurobiological facts
behind Pascal's profound insight, and that
may be none too soon. If the human species
is to prevail, physical resources and social
affairs must be wisely managed, and such
wisdom will come most easily from the
knowledgeable and thoughtful planning that
characterizes the rational, self-knowing
mind.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby nmblum88 » Tue Aug 21, 2012 3:33 pm

Excuse me... I'm a bit slow, and thus still hung up on "we don't live in a world of irrefutable evidence."
Wow.. deep... and of course true..
But then there is the accompanying fact that but we don't live in a world of REFUTABLE evidence either.
What we do live in is a world of what is subjected to proof, passes its stringent tests, and thus BECOMES evidence.
When something presented as evidence is REFUTED, it is no longer evidence, but a footnote in a history at best, an object lesson in exercising caution, and at worst, nothing at all .. the detritus of the human search for truth. .
Not all religionists have in common this desire to invent facts and apply them to their beliefs...
Some are quite satisfied to proclaim their faith, as in "I believe because I believe.., "which is after all what FAITH is all about, and with which no one can quarrel (until, perhaps, the faith is translated in to political action, in which case it becomes assailable)
The OP has inserted himself here because he wants to argue faith... and doing so by creating his own evidence by his own faulty standards.
And then blaming his not being able to get away with it on the imperfection of atheist character.....
Very funny... and the evidence for that is that I am laughing.

NMB
Skepticism:
" Norma, you poor sad lonely alcoholic. You entire life is devoted to interrupting other people's posts on this forum, regardless of the topic, to tell them what's wrong with them. The irony is, here you are doing it again, with this very post.
Your fanciful card games, movie sojourns and exciting overseas trips, that all take place within the four walls of an aged care retirement home, do not suggest your own children offered you the care, I gave my parents."

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19630
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:12 am

xouper wrote:Shhhh!! Let ...

:lol:
Hi, Io the lurker.

CMurdock
Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby CMurdock » Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:16 am

Thanks to y'all, I've added an addendum to my article about atheists. It's the portion below the ellipsis.

http://calebmurdock.blogspot.com/2012/0 ... elves.html

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19630
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:23 am

CMurdock wrote:Thanks to y'all, I've added an addendum to my article about atheists. It's the portion below the ellipsis.

http://calebmurdock.blogspot.com/2012/0 ... elves.html


Your'e welcome. :senile:
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19430
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:23 am

Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19630
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:29 am

CMurdock wrote:Thanks to y'all, I've added an addendum to my article about atheists. It's the portion below the ellipsis.

http://calebmurdock.blogspot.com/2012/0 ... elves.html


A mature person decides what to believe and then looks for evidence, finding the proof for himself.


Sorry dude, making the evidence fit your beliefs is not what a mature person does...
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Donnageddon
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1030
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:07 am

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Donnageddon » Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:41 am

CMurdock wrote:Thanks to y'all, I've added an addendum to my article about atheists. It's the portion below the ellipsis.

http://calebmurdock.blogspot.com/2012/0 ... elves.html


I am as excited as a kitten not to read it!
My name is not Donna.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19630
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:47 am

Donnageddon wrote:
CMurdock wrote:Thanks to y'all, I've added an addendum to my article about atheists. It's the portion below the ellipsis.

http://calebmurdock.blogspot.com/2012/0 ... elves.html


I am as excited as a kitten not to read it!


:kit:

(Thanks for giving me a reason to use that one, I'm childish... :lol:)
Hi, Io the lurker.


Return to “Origins”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest