How can fundamentalists not wake up?

[ManMachine]

I used to believe in Noah's Ark and so forth, because I had been indoctrinated and had never bothered to reexamine these beliefs as an adult. I believed in evolution, dinosaurs, etc. while I simultaneously believed the Bible stories were based on real events. I didn't see the cognitive dissonance.

However, when I went to college and began to discuss these issues with friends, I rapidly woke up to the stupidity of my beliefs. It wasn't instantaneous, but it happened eventually. This was in the days before internet, and I was ignorant of comparative religion, philosophy, etc. that might have accelerated the process.

I just don't understand how people today can believe in Noah's Ark in spite of all the resources available through the internet (such as AF). How is that possible? I'm pretty gullible, but I eventually woke up. Many of these Christians are smarter and better educated than me, but they keep believing things that are ridiculous.

EDIT: I especially don't understand how fundamentalists can come to atheist forums and debate these issues without realizing that their beliefs are silly. This is different from those fundamentalists who don't think much about their beliefs.

Exactly how much do you believe in evolution?

MM

[watchamadoodle]

Exactly how much do you believe in evolution?

This must be a trick question.
Are you asking how much I believed in evolution 30 years ago when I was in college? I believed humans evolved from homo erectus, etc. I believed in abiogenesis. The only Christian spin I added was to assume the invisible hand of God guiding everything. I also imagined a moment in time when humans were suddenly "in God's image"... Mostly I had not given it much thought. I assumed the stories in Genesis were loosely based on historical events. I wasn't a Biblical literalist, but I didn't think it was all malarkey like I do today.

I don't know if that answers your question. I don't claim to be an expert on evolution if that is what you mean.

[Mudhammam]

I don't know if that answers your question. I don't claim to be an expert on evolution if that is what you mean.

If you haven't read On the Origin of Species, I hope you do. It is really the definitive example of what an ideal philosopher should look like: a naturalist.

[watchamadoodle]

I don't know if that answers your question. I don't claim to be an expert on evolution if that is what you mean.

If you haven't read On the Origin of Species, I hope you do. It is really the definitive example of what an ideal philosopher should look like: a naturalist.

I added that to my wish list. Unfortunately I am a slow reader, so I am limited. I enjoy the writing style of the 1800s (based on the few books I have read from that period). I looked at the table of contents, and I was surprised at how little the topics of evolution have changed in 150 years. Darwin seems to have been very thorough.

[abaris]

Darwin seems to have been very thorough.

Well, he spent his whole life on it and most of it writing and readacting the book.

[Ravenshire]

Get a Ph. D. in evolutionary biology or paleontolgy and expose the conspiracy from the inside!

That shit will never happen. Truly challenging their beliefs seems to be beyond most theists.

---

The reality is "Every explanation which we have explained naturally, has been explained naturally", which doesn't really get you anywhere.

Can you name something that actually exists that can't be given a naturalistic explanation?!?

[Vox Populi]

I used to believe in Noah's Ark and so forth, because I had been indoctrinated and had never bothered to reexamine these beliefs as an adult. I believed in evolution, dinosaurs, etc. while I simultaneously believed the Bible stories were based on real events. I didn't see the cognitive dissonance.

However, when I went to college and began to discuss these issues with friends, I rapidly woke up to the stupidity of my beliefs. It wasn't instantaneous, but it happened eventually. This was in the days before internet, and I was ignorant of comparative religion, philosophy, etc. that might have accelerated the process.

I just don't understand how people today can believe in Noah's Ark in spite of all the resources available through the internet (such as AF). How is that possible? I'm pretty gullible, but I eventually woke up. Many of these Christians are smarter and better educated than me, but they keep believing things that are ridiculous.

EDIT: I especially don't understand how fundamentalists can come to atheist forums and debate these issues without realizing that their beliefs are silly. This is different from those fundamentalists who don't think much about their beliefs.

When I was active in the Mormon Church... There were two doctors I knew. ER Doctor and a Psyche Doc. I was amazed that they held onto there beliefs so much. Like you see death EVERYDAY, you know biology in and out. How in the hell can you keep all the same beliefs and be around dieing people all day. I just don't EFFIN get it!!

[watchamadoodle]

When I was active in the Mormon Church... There were two doctors I knew. ER Doctor and a Psyche Doc. I was amazed that they held onto there beliefs so much. Like you see death EVERYDAY, you know biology in and out. How in the hell can you keep all the same beliefs and be around dieing people all day. I just don't EFFIN get it!!

I can kind of understand it for the medical doctor, but it must have been difficult for the psychiatric doctor. Psychiatry tends to be atheistic.
But it's still not as bizarre as the fundamentalists that debate their beliefs daily with atheists. I would think that would eventually have an effect on them.

[Angrboda]

Get a Ph. D. in evolutionary biology or paleontolgy and expose the conspiracy from the inside!

That shit will never happen. Truly challenging their beliefs seems to be beyond most theists.

John Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells (born 1942) is an American molecular biologist, author and advocate of intelligent design. Wells joined the Unification Church in 1974, and subsequently wrote that the teachings of church founder Sun Myung Moon, his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers convinced him to devote his life to "destroying Darwinism." ... In 1989, he studied at the University of California, Berkeley, where he earned a PhD in molecular and cellular biology in 1994. He became a member of several scientific associations and has published in academic journals.

Wikipedia

[Mister Agenda]

The Bible is an ancient book, parts of it over 3000 years old. Reading it cover to cover is not really sufficient, if you have no contextual understanding.

Yes, yes, I assert you are the one who doesn't understand it, with justification equal to what you just offered.

It seems like one of the reasons for you leaving the faith is, in your mind, witnessing your religious professor committing fallacies in his apologetics. But that would be a fallacy in itself, namely, the fallacy fallacy, ie that a claim is wrong because a fallacy was used in support of it. Breaking faith because of things your parents didn't tell you would also be a fallacy fallacy.

The 'fallacy fallacy' is concluding that the conclusion of an argument is wrong because the reasoning is fallacious. I did not do that. I concluded that belief in God's existence has thus far not been justified by evidence and reason, which is a justified conclusion from observing that apologetics is riddled with faulty reasoning. When I went to college I was an agnostic theist, what I learned there left me an agnostic atheist. If your faith is based on lies and omissions, it is reasonable for it to break when that is discovered. I would stop using this 'fallacy fallacy' nonsense, were I you, since you're so keen on misapplying it.

When you see me say something like 'argument X is fallacious, therefore conclusion Y is wrong', THEN you may legitimately try to pin the so-called 'fallacy fallacy' on me.

The issue with the science conspiracy thing is quite interesting, because there used to be no such thing as "science", it used to be "the philosophy of x", ie biology, physics etc.

In what relevant way is THAT what makes it interesting?

Science introduced apriori naturalism, the answer must be naturalistic else it is not plausible.

Sigh. In what way can science evaluate 'supernatural answers', especially unfalsifiable ones that magic away the evidence one would expect? Science can only investigate the natural so long as the supernatural refuses to leave evidence. Your complaint is like thinking there is something profoundly wrong about mechanics not considering that the reason your tires are low is because of demonic activity.

This is the synthetic science paradigm and why that paradigm has always generated atheists.

It's not the scientific paradigm that generates atheists, it's fundamentalists lying about it that does.

It is this paradigm which is the grounds for such theories as of evolution, by way of circular reasoning.

Observation: there are a multitude of species, and they fall into larger groups, and those fall into larger groups. There are also fossils, that indicate different species at different times, and chronologically indicate that the nested hierarchy goes back millions of years. What would explain this?

Hypothesis 1 : God did it.

Hypothesis 2: Modern species are descended from ancient species, and over long periods of time one species can change into another, or multiple other species.

Hypothesis 1 Testing: Um, if you read the Bible in the right light at a certain angle, and figure a day to God is like 50 million years to us, Genesis almost gets it in the right order.

Hypothesis II: 150 years of attempting to disprove Hypothesis II have failed, because all of the evidence found has supported it. If the hypothesis were untrue, there are millions of things that could have been discovered to upend it. With plenty of details filled in, the hypothesis stands, and is now a robust scientific theory.

"Only naturalism exists",
"Life needs a naturalistic explanation",
"The only plausible naturalistic explanation is that somehow tiny molecules came alive and gradually grew more complex",

Evolution does not explain the origin of life. God could have poofed the first microbe into existence, and it wouldn't change a thing about the theory of evolution. An explanation for the origin of life may be coming, but it's not the same field of study. Biological evolution only deals with things that are alive.

"Evolution is true because it is the only reasonable explanation",

It certainly seems to be. If you've got a better one, show your work.

"Evolution disproves God",

Nonsense. At best, evolution disproves a concept of God incompatible with evolution being the reason for the proliferation of species. Maybe your personal idea of God is at odds with this, but there are hundreds of millions of people who believe in God and evolution both, thank you very much, a fact of which it would be astonishing if you were unaware of it.

"Only naturalism exists".

Naturalism is a point of view, and there are lots of other points of view. I think you were going (with your weird habit of putting your own words in quotes as though they were the words of the people you're talking to instead of what you're making up for us to conveniently think in order to make your point) for 'only naturalism is true'. And by that, you seem to mean only 'metaphysical naturalism is true'. If you're aware of a way to prove that, I'd like to hear it, because it would suddenly settle a lot of philosophy. Science requires methodological naturalism, not metaphysical naturalism. Millions of scientists are theists, Q.E.D.

And it is the paradigm which zealous devotion to it as an explicator for all things is dangerous, is if the explanation is not naturalistic, science will never find it.

How would science go about finding an unnatural explanation that doesn't leave evidence? Again, you're complaining to the mechanic for not considering non-mechanical explanations for your car's ailments.

Relying on science as an explicator for all things also necessarily relies on human cognition to be able to explain all things, and such a position is self defeating, as you assume infinite cognition - a supernatural property.

Do you ever get tired from all the straw men you build? Science can't possibly explain 'all things'. That's just a position you wish we held because, again, it's convenient to your rant.

Kinda reminds me of "I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." - The most core principle of Luciferianism.

I dare you to make a more irrelevant statement in your next reply to me.

The truth is that there is a conspiracy, but its not something im going to labour on because i think most of you have too strong normalcy bias to be able to acknowledge it.

Is normalcy bias anything like reality bias?

Essentially it was catalysed during the enlightenment and has its roots in the ancient mystery schools of Babylon. Who supplied the light for the enlightenment? Lucifer the Light-Bearer, ofcourse. In essence, the science paradigm was born out of Luciferianism, for the purpose of creating atheists, who are in principle indistinguishable from Luciferian, although don't self-acknowledge it.

There's only one reason science has caught on: it works. Over and over again, it has proven superior to any other method of investigating nature. Employment of it has brought more technological progress in the last two hundred years than the entire previous history of humankind. That's because ultimately science boils down to making 'whether something works' the standard for incorporation into its ever-growing body of knowledge. It can't answer questions that don't concern the natural world, but it's unmatched in investigating the material world.

But if it takes believing that science is a Satanic conspiracy to maintain your cherished childhood beliefs, it's a free country. But maybe you should stop using the products of this Satanic conspiracy you say you believe in. After all, if you're right, what could be more Satanic than the internet?

---

I'd call that "heartless". Apathetic means "indifferent, doesn't care".

Okay heartless fits theists perfectly.

Some of them. Most of them are at least average in that respect. The internets tend to draw out the extremes and the media tends to show them.