Flat out denial.

[TillICollapse]

Denial is really a tool used to protect a belief or position, that the believer knows not to be well evidenced. That puts them in a spot of experiencing cognitive dissonance whenever presented with evidence that goes against their belief and the defense mechanism will be engaged to protect the belief.

(Bolding mine) I tend to agree with most of your posts, and I see you take a stance similar to this quite often ... which as I said, I tend to agree with overall. However I'm not personally convinced that denial is always a tool being used to knowingly protect a belief that the same believer also knows to not be well evidenced. IOW, I'm not always sure it's so cut and dry ... that those ingredients are always part of that cocktail and the cocktail remains the same and doesn't advance further, to where the person is aware on some level of what is actually going on. I often toy with the idea that the denial and dissonance can become something else entirely, and the person's experience becomes something different that is no longer equally relatable to the denial/dissonance relationship. There is something there I can't quite put my finger on with certain types of people, and I'm not convinced it's just because they are more adept at using denial. I think they may have advanced in some way, to where the denial itself has morphed into a type of actual cognitive process to where dissonance isn't even "dissonance" anymore. At least, it's not experienced the way we would think of it.

 

[nonbeliever314]

I'm boggled by it too. But there is still value in debate. It helps you to clarify your own thinking. Because if you can't explain something to someone else then you don't really understand it yourself. That is why I do it.

Very good point. (self punch)

 

[nonbeliever314]

Please give me an example of a scientist theorizing something I deny.

What I mean basically is the Christians that try to argue for the existence of their god scientifically aren't being scientific. I've seen it happen and experienced it through debating on here. If you are debating someone about something, and you clearly get shown wrong, admit you've been shown wrong and embrace it, that's what science is all about. If I was clearly shown to be flat out wrong about something, I would basically say "Yep, you're right", and move on. Some people I debate on this forum seem like if they believed that everything fell up and I easily showed everything falls down they won't admit they are wrong. They go into denial and try to work around it, and it so obvious they are just trying to hide that they've been clearly shown wrong.
Some of these people are clearly very smart people, but the minute a nerve gets struck, and someone clearly catches a hole in their argument or just refutes something they said, their faith kicks in, and their reason goes out the window temporarily.

 

[bhsmte]

(Bolding mine) I tend to agree with most of your posts, and I see you take a stance similar to this quite often ... which as I said, I tend to agree with overall. However I'm not personally convinced that denial is always a tool being used to knowingly protect a belief that the same believer also knows to not be well evidenced. IOW, I'm not always sure it's so cut and dry ... that those ingredients are always part of that cocktail and the cocktail remains the same and doesn't advance further, to where the person is aware on some level of what is actually going on. I often toy with the idea that the denial and dissonance can become something else entirely, and the person's experience becomes something different that is no longer equally relatable to the denial/dissonance relationship. There is something there I can't quite put my finger on with certain types of people, and I'm not convinced it's just because they are more adept at using denial. I think they may have advanced in some way, to where the denial itself has morphed into a type of actual cognitive process to where dissonance isn't even "dissonance" anymore. At least, it's not experienced the way we would think of it.

Denial in people who are this type; evolution deniers, moon landing deniers and the like, use denial not consciously in the manner of; "I know this is good evidence so I am just going to deny it". They use it as a rudimentary part of a strong belief that is crucial to their psyche and the denial becomes subconscious and virtually automatic. Virtually to the point, where they have brain washed themselves.

It all comes down to pain. Is it more painful to accept the evidence that my belief is wrong, or is it more painful to use defense mechanisms to protect the belief. Those who deny well evidenced reality, choose the path of less pain. With some people, they may get to a point, where it actually becomes more painful and requires too much energy and inner turmoil to keep denying and they eventually give up their belief. The ones who hang onto their belief though, keep building stronger and stronger defense mechanisms.

 

[paulm50]

It's called faith.

The problem with "Faith". Is in how far you want t take it.

The Bible has been proved wrong more than it's been proved right. Even Jesus, if he actually said it, has been proven wrong, and don;t get me started on Revelations which was clearly written by a mad man. And included to scare people into staying in line.

I know the 10 Commandments are good, most of what Jesus taught is very good. I question the rest, because if man was born in sin, why should we accept none of the bibles writers and heroes were without sin. When many of them, according to the bible, were clearly sinners.

My biggest doubt of gods existence comes not from science, it's from the world around us now and for the last 2,000 years. When Man has never hesitated in killing his fellow Man on the least excuse. Religious wars among warring Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. All following the same religion, just a slightly different version. Then different religions killing each other. Then different tribes killing each other.

All because god or Jesus fails to return, as promised. Jesus could of saved billions of lives if he had only stayed around longer. Is the slaughter a gods intention or a lack of their being a god to stop it?

Evidence is subjective. People claim there is no evidence to suggest there is a creator. Many believe that everything in existence is evidence of a creator. It all depends on your perception of the world around you.

There may well be a creator. The writers of the bible had no knowledge or contact with him. Unless one's perception is only what a books says, and even then one ignores a lot of it.

Evidence of how evolution works, is all around us. Our food, pets and gardens prove how easy it is to make living things evolve.

 

[Catherineanne]

I'm done trying to debate religious people. But I'll retire with a question and some discussion... What causes some of you, in the heat of a debate, to flat out deny things that are ridiculously obvious? Like when a scientist says "No, you're wrong, this is how this works....." etc, but you still take the original idea that you were just shown wrong about and still run with it? Why do you do that?

People are human. They will often defend a position simply because it is being challenged. Stop challenging and they may well stop caring; they may even abandon ridiculous beliefs completely. Nobody can be forced to be sensible; we have to learn how to do it, and it takes time.

 

[Catherineanne]

I question the rest, because if man was born in sin, why should we accept none of the bibles writers and heroes were without sin. When many of them, according to the bible, were clearly sinners.

Man is not born 'in sin' but in original sin. This is not the same thing. We do not actually sin until we are fully aware of the difference between right and wrong, and choose to do wrong. A baby or young child cannot sin, and a person who lacks the ability to discern right from wrong cannot sin. They may do things which we regard as wrong, but because they do not know this they remain not morally culpable.

The concept of original sin says that once we have a full awareness and understanding of right and wrong none of us will be capable of spending our whole lives doing right. We will fall, just as Adam and Eve fell; they are archetypes for our own humanity.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm done trying to debate religious people. But I'll retire with a question and some discussion... What causes some of you, in the heat of a debate, to flat out deny things that are ridiculously obvious? Like when a scientist says "No, you're wrong, this is how this works....." etc, but you still take the original idea that you were just shown wrong about and still run with it? Why do you do that?

Very simple, it is a reasonable function of "faith". You need to have faith on something in order to fully understand it. And, I believe you do have some.

 

[juvenissun]

I know it's faith. I'm just boggled by it. It's like being caught in a lie, you have that "uh oh" moment in your head, and then deliberately cover it up (in the case of the ones that scientifically try to debate). Like in the Carroll/Craig debate, Craig is shown wrong very clearly and then he stutters out, "maybe that's just his hunch, or....., hope", and you can totally tell. The behavior reminds me exactly of someone trying to cover up a lie, they walk all over their words, get hesitant, etc. So to me, it almost seems like the faithful ones that can reason consciously suppress their reasoning when they have to. (I guess this just turned into a psychology thread)

I think part of the problem may be yours.

You think you know, and he does not know.
He think even he does not know, but you do not know either. Thus he rejected your insufficient knowledge, but failed to provide an alternative.

Are you sure you know the answer?
No matter what the problem is, I doubt it.
You may try your best knowledge and I will try to cast some doubts on it.

 

[paulm50]

Please give me an example of a scientist theorizing something I deny.

These are not theory.

Dinosaur skeletons.

Early hominid skeletons.

Neanderthal skeletons.

Mega fauna skeletons.

Cave Drawings.

Göbekli Tepe.

Caveman flint tools.

Just barely scratching the surface of evidence, much of it you could find for yourself or own.

Then there's the bible itself.

Add to that Genesis account of the children of Adam and Eve being farmers and;

Evidence for the Exodus.

Israel is now a very powerful Nation and with other powerful Nations they could fund all the investigation into real evidence of the bible stories. They choose not to, unless they're guaranteed the right result. Ron Wyatt kept finding the very thing he set out to find, and never came back with real evidence. However blind faith believers are given a thin thread to hang onto. And there's the problem. The slightest suggestion that something may, might, could be, is taken as truth. And real proof a mere trick.

Which leaves so many open to conmen, fraudsters and thieves. From selling a "ticket" into heaven, to TV evangelists, to faith healers, etc.

 

[Colter]

I'm done trying to debate religious people. But I'll retire with a question and some discussion... What causes some of you, in the heat of a debate, to flat out deny things that are ridiculously obvious? Like when a scientist says "No, you're wrong, this is how this works....." etc, but you still take the original idea that you were just shown wrong about and still run with it? Why do you do that?

Believers and nonbelievers alike maintain concept frames of the world in their minds which are subject to change. Just like the developing child grows and changes in how they see the world, so do religious and nonreligious. Religion is sloooooow to change in part because some religious prefer the security provided by institutional conformity.


Evolved religion is the scaffolding for revealed religion. Some people of faith don't survive the discovery that some of their former beliefs were in error. So then they become religiously nonreligious.

 

[Colter]

Denial in people who are this type; evolution deniers, moon landing deniers and the like, use denial not consciously in the manner of; "I know this is good evidence so I am just going to deny it". They use it as a rudimentary part of a strong belief that is crucial to their psyche and the denial becomes subconscious and virtually automatic. Virtually to the point, where they have brain washed themselves.

It all comes down to pain. Is it more painful to accept the evidence that my belief is wrong, or is it more painful to use defense mechanisms to protect the belief. Those who deny well evidenced reality, choose the path of less pain. With some people, they may get to a point, where it actually becomes more painful and requires too much energy and inner turmoil to keep denying and they eventually give up their belief. The ones who hang onto their belief though, keep building stronger and stronger defense mechanisms.

And that is your belief.

 

[Colter]

I'm boggled by it too. But there is still value in debate. It helps you to clarify your own thinking. Because if you can't explain something to someone else then you don't really understand it yourself. That is why I do it.

This is called fine tuning the doctrines of doubt. Lucifer fell into this same process wherein the limitations of his finite intellect simultaneously became the maximum of infinite possibility. His conclusions, nourished and guarded by pride of self, were self deceiving and tragic for all involved.

 

[Colter]

Objective evidence and facts are independent of anyone's subjective thoughts and exists and is there whether someone acknowledges it or not. Whether a person accepts the evidence or not is a different story.

If there is a crime scene and DNA of the suspect is found at the scene, this evidence is objective and is not subjective.

Facts aren't always what they appear to be though.

 

[RhaegarTargaryen]

Objective evidence and facts are independent of anyone's subjective thoughts

But the interpretation of that evidence is not.

 

[pshun2404]

The OP states "Like when a scientist says "No, you're wrong, this is how this works....." etc, but you still take the original idea that you were just shown wrong about and still run with it? Why do you do that?"

Besides the fact that just because someone (scientist, many, or otherwise) SAYS something is true or evidenced, or how it works does not make it correct or true....

So please gibe a specific example of what you mean?

Paul

 

[True Scotsman]

This is called fine tuning the doctrines of doubt. Lucifer fell into this same process wherein the limitations of his finite intellect simultaneously became the maximum of infinite possibility. His conclusions, nourished and guarded by pride of self, were self deceiving and tragic for all involved.

Prove it!

 

[True Scotsman]

The problem with "Faith". Is in how far you want t take it.

The Bible has been proved wrong more than it's been proved right. Even Jesus, if he actually said it, has been proven wrong, and don;t get me started on Revelations which was clearly written by a mad man. And included to scare people into staying in line.

I know the 10 Commandments are good, most of what Jesus taught is very good. I question the rest, because if man was born in sin, why should we accept none of the bibles writers and heroes were without sin. When many of them, according to the bible, were clearly sinners.

My biggest doubt of gods existence comes not from science, it's from the world around us now and for the last 2,000 years. When Man has never hesitated in killing his fellow Man on the least excuse. Religious wars among warring Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. All following the same religion, just a slightly different version. Then different religions killing each other. Then different tribes killing each other.

All because god or Jesus fails to return, as promised. Jesus could of saved billions of lives if he had only stayed around longer. Is the slaughter a gods intention or a lack of their being a god to stop it?


There may well be a creator. The writers of the bible had no knowledge or contact with him. Unless one's perception is only what a books says, and even then one ignores a lot of it.

Evidence of how evolution works, is all around us. Our food, pets and gardens prove how easy it is to make living things evolve.

I don't take anything on faith.

 

[Colter]

Prove it!

Which part? That you have faith in doctrines of doubt and fine tune defense of your doctrines by engaging people who have faith in the Living God? Or that Lucifer's pride lead him to take himself too seriously?

 

[Chicken Little]

And "reason" is subjective.

NICE yep it is subjective to who you are talking to and about.
But most of the time this site is way too much like a
tabloid Gossip rag . once printed in some rag.. " it is a proven fact that( Insert gossip like ' Bruce Jenner" is really a woman !! " I mean how do you argue or even start with logic like that . and of course it is indisputable because they wrote it in that special rag..


(http://govtslaves.info/10-usda-scientists-harassed-for-questioning-the-safety-of-roundup/ the best 'science' money can buy and I can't find the P where they had to dumped report after report from a bought rag , 43 in just a year that was bad bad science.. )

so how do we get rid of the thousands and thousands of lies in all the bought and paid for science review boards and their publications that have been published and let loose and are now part of the norm and believed by folks like the OP ?