Irony of the evolutionary belief

[F1fan]

If, as the defenders of the evolutionary doctrine say, all living beings arose from a common ancestor... as the saying goes: "there is no room for so many people."

Why should we take your belief over the conclusions of experts? You never give us a reason to trust your beliefs.

I know that I'm getting into something that I don't have time to really deal with, but it is difficult to resist asking about what extent you accept my own cognitive experiences,

It depends on what you share as being your cognitive experiences. If you explain how you touched a hot stove and it burned your fingers ten my trust is high. If you claim you were in distress and experienced an angel comfort you, well then my confidence would be very low. What others share of their personal cognitive/mental experiences will be assessed on what I understand of the environment we humans exist in, what psychology explains of human behavior, and how humans can be unreliable in what they believe they are experiencing in their minds. The more extraordinary the claim, the less I am going to accept the claim at face value.

and how this level of acceptance (or lack thereof) might effect your level of willingness to use my cognitive experiences as a basis of argument.

We all know that religious people will adopt certain ideas from their social exprience and create experiences for themselves based on learned ideas, and their desire to mimic the social behavior of those around them. Some of my bike racing friends will share their race experiences on social media, and being a racer myself I understand what they describe is real and accurate. They will go into detail about how the race evolved and what they did as a partcipant, sometime doing well, sometimes cracking before the finish. These kinds of testimonies are drastically different than a theist explaining how they had an experience of God during a church service. I've been in church as well and understand the awe we humans can feel. I just assess these emotions and the experience as something occurring in my mind, and sometimes falling back into religious ideas.

 

[F1fan]

I know that I'm getting into something that I don't have time to really deal with, but it is difficult to resist asking about what extent you accept my own cognitive experiences,

It depends on what you share as being your cognitive experiences. If you explain how you touched a hot stove and it burned your fingers ten my trust is high. If you claim you were in distress and experienced an angel comfort you, well then my confidence would be very low. What others share of their personal cognitive/mental experiences will be assessed on what I understand of the environment we humans exist in, what psychology explains of human behavior, and how humans can be unreliable in what they believe they are experiencing in their minds. The more extraordinary the claim, the less I am going to accept the claim at face value.

and how this level of acceptance (or lack thereof) might effect your level of willingness to use my cognitive experiences as a basis of argument.

We all know that religious people will adopt certain ideas from their social exprience and create experiences for themselves based on learned ideas, and their desire to mimic the social behavior of those around them. Some of my bike racing friends will share their race experiences on social media, and being a racer myself I understand what they describe is real and accurate. They will go into detail about how the race evolved and what they did as a partcipant, sometime doing well, sometimes cracking before the finish. These kinds of testimonies are drastically different than a theist explaining how they had an experience of God during a church service. I've been in church as well and understand the awe we humans can feel. I just assess these emotions and the experience as something occurring in my mind, and sometimes falling back into religious ideas.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It depends on what you share as being your cognitive experiences. If you explain how you touched a hot stove and it burned your fingers ten my trust is high. If you claim you were in distress and experienced an angel comfort you, well then my confidence would be very low. What others share of their personal cognitive/mental experiences will be assessed on what I understand of the environment we humans exist in, what psychology explains of human behavior, and how humans can be unreliable in what they believe they are experiencing in their minds. The more extraordinary the claim, the less I am going to accept the claim at face value.

We all know that religious people will adopt certain ideas from their social exprience and create experiences for themselves based on learned ideas, and their desire to mimic the social behavior of those around them. Some of my bike racing friends will share their race experiences on social media, and being a racer myself I understand what they describe is real and accurate. They will go into detail about how the race evolved and what they did as a partcipant, sometime doing well, sometimes cracking before the finish. These kinds of testimonies are drastically different than a theist explaining how they had an experience of God during a church service. I've been in church as well and understand the awe we humans can feel. I just assess these emotions and the experience as something occurring in my mind, and sometimes falling back into religious ideas.

A note. You describe common experinces. It might not work for in the broad sense neurodiverse.

 

[F1fan]

A note. You describe common experinces. It might not work for in the broad sense neurodiverse.

How would common expriences not work in the broad sense at all?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How would common expriences not work in the broad sense at all?

No, it is that all experinces are not common for all people in the same sense.

 

[F1fan]

No, it is that all experinces are not common for all people in the same sense.

This is why it's important for humans to talk and share what they exverience. This includes people having other perspectives to compare themselves to and check reality. I've said before that if there's a history of humans from all over the world having no contact with each other but having the same exprience with a God, that would suggest this God actually exists and certain people exprience it. If historically India and China included cultural emergence of Jesus apvearing to them, that would be impressive. But The Asian continent never heard of Jesus until Westerners travelled and brought Christianity with them.

So what humans experience has to be assessed against what other experience so we can understand norms.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is why it's important for humans to talk and share what they exverience. This includes people having other perspectives to compare themselves to and check reality. I've said before that if there's a history of humans from all over the world having no contact with each other but having the same exprience with a God, that would suggest this God actually exists and certain people exprience it. If historically India and China included cultural emergence of Jesus apvearing to them, that would be impressive. But The Asian continent never heard of Jesus until Westerners travelled and brought Christianity with them.

So what humans experience has to be assessed against what other experience so we can understand norms.

Well, sorry to burst your buble. All is not about God.
Now look up the words - for a neurodiverse like me, it in some cases doesn't work to try to act like a neurotypical.

In general words brains are sometimes the same, sometimes similar and sometimes different for the everyday life besides relgion as such.
If your trick is to turh everything in being about God when it comes to living a life as such, you might want to reconsider what you are doing.

I don't want you to become me. I want you to accect human diversity and you can still do you as you. That is the point.

 

[F1fan]

Well, sorry to burst your buble. All is not about God.
Now look up the words - for a neurodiverse like me, it in some cases doesn't work to try to act like a neurotypical.

We al know you have your own unique thinking process that deviates from the norm. From what you describe and share it is more of a liability than advantageous.

In general words brains are sometimes the same, sometimes similar and sometimes different for the everyday life besides relgion as such.

Words brains?

If your trick is to turh everything in being about God when it comes to living a life as such, you might want to reconsider what you are doing.

Belief in God is a common experience and one that is easy used as an example of a conditioned and learned way of thinking. Critical thinkers offer challenges to this common pattern of human thought and behavior.

I don't want you to become me.

LOL. No worries there. I've notived at times that you seem to struggle understanding that you are not others, and vice versa.

I want you to accect human diversity and you can still do you as you. That is the point.

Nothing in my posts suggest I don't. What I don't do is blindly accept that what other claims is true at face value.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We al know you have your own unique thinking process that deviates from the norm. From what you describe and share it is more of a liability than advantageous.

Words brains?

Belief in God is a common experience and one that is easy used as an example of a conditioned and learned way of thinking. Critical thinkers offer challenges to this common pattern of human thought and behavior.

LOL. No worries there. I've notived at times that you seem to struggle understanding that you are not others, and vice versa.

Nothing in my posts suggest I don't. What I don't do is blindly accept that what other claims is true at face value.

Well, norms are not science nor objective for how to behave. And there is no objective scientific measurement standard for all aspects of a good life.

 

[F1fan]

Well, norms are not science nor objective for how to behave.

Norms are data, patterns that we use as baseline for understanding ow we humans behave and think.

And there is no objective scientific measurement standard for all aspects of a good life.

So what? Why does this need to be stated? Why go off into the weeds with this thinking? Focus.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Norms are data, patterns that we use as baseline for understanding ow we humans behave and think.

So what? Why does this need to be stated? Why go off into the weeds with this thinking? Focus.

Yes, we don't all think or behave like you in all cases. But you are the standard for a good life in all cases, right?

 

[F1fan]

Yes, we don't all think or behave like you in all cases.

I am an advocate for critical thinking, and this is a learned and practices skill that follows certain rules, like logic. There is also the emotional intelligence skill that helps monitor the self and it's attitudes, beliefs and biases, and working to set them aside when working through questions and reasoning.

But you are the standard for a good life in all cases, right?

Why the sarcasm and hyperbole?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am an advocate for critical thinking, and this is a learned and practices skill that follows certain rules, like logic. There is also the emotional intelligence skill that helps monitor the self and it's attitudes, beliefs and biases, and working to set them aside when working through questions and reasoning.

Why the sarcasm and hyperbole?

Because you don't understand what it means to be neorodiverse as far as I can tell.

 

[Pogo]

If, as the defenders of the evolutionary doctrine say, all living beings arose from a common ancestor... as the saying goes: "there is no room for so many people."

Your continued insistence on creating strawmen and then knocking them down andclaiming nothing makes sense except within your understanding of an ancient book is the mark of a disingenuous fundamentalist believer and marks you as incapable of rational human conversation.
Putting smilies at the end only highlights your lack of respect for others, not a good look.

 

[F1fan]

Because you don't understand what it means to be neorodiverse as far as I can tell.

Neurodiverse is a fact. That you have an odd way of thinking doesn't mean it is optimal or helpful. We humans shares our ways of thinking and we can all learn (if willing) to see what works and what doesn't, and we move towards a method that has reliable results. This is how the rules of logic were formed, because they were efficient and reliable. Your way of thinking often goes way off on tangents, and even gets mired into immobility because you get obsessed with something and can't move forward. I recognize your way of thinking, but I also recognize it as unreliable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Neurodiverse is a fact. That you have an odd way of thinking doesn't mean it is optimal or helpful. We humans shares our ways of thinking and we can all learn (if willing) to see what works and what doesn't, and we move towards a method that has reliable results. This is how the rules of logic were formed, because they were efficient and reliable. Your way of thinking often goes way off on tangents, and even gets mired into immobility because you get obsessed with something and can't move forward. I recognize your way of thinking, but I also recognize it as unreliable.

Well, you are a believer in that we can all learn to have the same brain as your normal. That is not a fact.

 

[F1fan]

Well, you are a believer in that we can all learn to have the same brain as your normal. That is not a fact.

I claimed no such belief.

What I observe is that some can adjust how they think to be more reliable. And we can understand reliable thinking in how it has reliable, truthful conclusions. We also observe many folks who are stuck in unreliable and inefficient patterns and habits, and may not be able to recognize their flaws.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I claimed no such belief.

What I observe is that some can adjust how they think to be more reliable. And we can understand reliable thinking in how it has reliable, truthful conclusions. We also observe many folks who are stuck in unreliable and inefficient patterns and habits, and may not be able to recognize their flaws.

Yes, I have actually learn that for some aspects of my life. But what I have learn is that there is no universal, absolute, reliable, truthful conclusions as the same for truth for all humans for all aspects of a good enough life.
I get what you are saying. The problem is in effect that you think truth is universally the same for all cases of all human life.
So this is it for now.

 

[Valjean]

If the postulates of the evolution of species were true, there would no longer be more than a few animal species on earth, because most of them would have become extinct, killing each other to survive. The entire surface of the planet would not be enough for a fight between all species. So it is logical to deduce that, as the Bible says, they were created from the beginning with instincts already recorded in their genes that allowed them to adapt to their own particular environment.

I don't follow. What does all this have to do with evolution? We can observe evolution in action, and the steps from microbe to elephant are accounted for by known, familiar chemistry.
There is no reason to invent an alternative hypothesis.
The magic poofing you propose has never been observed, nor is any mechanism known that might account for such a strange phenomenon.

Animals reproduce, and predator prey ratios stabilize. Overpredation leads to fewer predators and a recovery of the prey species. The system balances itself.
Energy is constantly being fed into the biosphere from the sun, and distributed throughout the ecosystem.

You need to bone up on your basic ecology.

 

[Valjean]

Because you don't understand what it means to be neorodiverse as far as I can tell.

What does your neurodiversity have to do with assessing reality? Physical facts and observations are measurable and testable. Logic/maths is inflexible and immutable.

The tools used to assess reality are unaffected by Neurological vicissitudes or emotions.

Well, you are a believer in that we can all learn to have the same brain as your normal. That is not a fact.

The same brain doesn't matter. It's the assessment technique that's important.
Solving a mathematical problem or predicting the results of a chemical reaction will yield a single, correct answer, whether done by a machine, a human brain, or whatever. Follow the steps correctly and you'll get the correct answer. A misstep will yield an invalid answer. It's the technique of calculation that matters, not the neurology of the mind doing the calculating.