The old "blinding us with religion" tactic, no?
yawwwwwwwwn.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Need some education on THEOLOGY? Start here! Evolutionists take note!
by LittleToe 92 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
LittleToe
MQ:I'm neither sure what point you are attempting to address, nor why you are using such a large font. Do you mind elaborating?
PS: and editing your post again to put a few breaks in that line of zzzzzzs, as it's screwing with the page format...
PPS: thanks -
Madame Quixote
Sorry about all the z's. The large font is an allusion to a joke that says,"whoever yells the loudest wins," not something I actually believe.
The quotes also are intended to allude to the "blinding by science" argument, whereby someone "wins" an argument by presenting scientific or mathematical info that is either so "far out," or so difficult for the person addressed to relate to or comprehend, that they simply stare, aghast, at the absolute complexity or absurdity of it.
In my case, I find it absurd to argue religion over science, but that's just me. I'm not talking about NOMA, either.
I mean, why would evolutionary atheists care about theology, something many of us don't even believe deserves to have -ogy at the end of it?
As far as I am concerned, and as far as most evolutionary scientists are concerned, theology is nonsense, and the terminology of nonsense is not of interest.
Obviously, some here disagree, but I just don't care about theology. Being brought up as a JW, I was completely blindsided by it and plan never to be so "blinded" again.
Just thought I'd share my perspective, as everyone else has done, and elaborate, sense you asked.
-
LittleToe
In my case, I find it absurd to argue religion over science, but that's just me.
Are you sure you posted that comment to the right thread? This thread hasn't got anything to do with that. I already stated for the record that I'm an evolutionist.
Just to recap what it is about: it takes the basic premise that if someone is going to engage in a debate about evolution then they are generally best off getting at least a rudimentary understanding of the subject before wading in. If someone is going to rebutt a theological argument, they should really do something similar. The alternative for either camp is to look rather silly...
As far as I am concerned, and as far as most evolutionary scientists are concerned, theology is nonsense, and the terminology of nonsense is not of interest.
So why did you read five pages of "nonesense", if the entire subject has absolutely no value or interest to you? Enquiring minds want to know
-
Madame Quixote
LT - As an example of the absurdity of which I spoke, the following is from one of the sites you recommended above, on the Biblical Anthropology link:
"Man was created by an immediate act of God and is thus not the result of evolutionary processes."
Now, I thought I read above, where you said "by the way, I believe in evolution."
Fine. Then, I must assume that you also believe that evolution was somehow directed by god or something, if you're a theist? If not, why promote pseudoscientific websites like that one which states that evolutionary processes aren't valid? It just seems a bit absurd to promote evolution and creationism at the same time.
-
Madame Quixote
"So why did you read five pages of "nonesense", if the entire subject has absolutely no value or interest to you? Enquiring minds want to know "
I skipped over the religious junk.
-
LittleToe
Do you think I am responsible for every link on every page referenced? I offered those links as a starting point for those interested in the subject, but cannot be held accountable for every jot and tittle posted there. Please be a little reasonable
If I state something like "I'm an evolutionist", you can be sure and take that comment at face value, even though many of the writers of theological websites are not.
-
LittleToe
I skipped over the religious junk.
Define "religious". Methinks you may be proving my point, as have a few others...
Besides, you evidently took the time to follow at least one link that you thought was "religious" (assuming that's the definition you are using).
Maybe why you're at it you can explain to me why it is that some folks just can't resist jumping into a thread that they allegedly have absolutely no interest in and post completely inane comments. It surely isn't an attempt to look intelligent is it?
Oh, and just in case you're prone to take offense, yes I am gently ribbing you with a grin on my face
-
Midget-Sasquatch
I know those links were just a starting point LT, but I think some mystical content meritted a mention.(okay I didn't intend to write that down quite that way.)
So I'll just offer this one link as a suggestion if you all don't mind, on Negative Theology:
-
Madame Quixote
Actually, the thread made it to 4 or 5 pages without piquing my interest until I noticed a fellow atheist showed up and posted. That's the only reason I bothered to look - honest to
godgoodness! Like I said, theology is far less interesting to me than atheism.