by AlanF 47 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
My experience tells me there is no "discussion" to be had between believers and science. The way they characterize themselves is a dead giveaway.
Only a degenerate believer resorts to "proof". I mean, come one! If you can prove something---where is belief necessary??
Trying to have it both ways is greed.
Thanks, Alan...I'll read it. Haven't been on there in a while.
Thanks for the info.
ps. "i think duncecap likes you" said in hushed tone lol
Where is Hooberus when you need him?
Hooberus is a young-earth creationist, and Michel Behe admits that evolution has occurred, except that it's directed by God. So there's a huge gulf between YECs and folks like Behe.
AlanF
Running Man
This board is a fantastic place when it sticks to JW based issues.
Errrr... they believe in a melange of OEC and IDiotism, not just 607 and 144,000, so discussion of why such beliefs are utter woo-hoo seems apt.
But, when it gets into fundamentalism or politics, then things tend to get really dumb.
Agreed, as normally half the people have the same level of knowledge about the subjects as they have about Ming Dynasty China, yet will insist they know better than people who have studied the subject.
Alan
Actually, hoob is moving towards IDiotism, although he'd never admit it. I just see it in what he says and how he says it nowadays. Hard to know for sure as it is beneath his arrogance to reply to me of late...
~
One thing to be said for endlessly reiterative discussions of Evo'ism-Cre'ism and IDiotism. Yes they ARE repetitive. They are signal proof the head-banging Creo's and ID-ots don't bother seeing if a topic has been debated before, or cannot understand they are trotting out hackneyed arguments that have been refuted.
But as there are always new people here, and as they rarely bother going through 6,490 pages of posts, they are invariably exposed to a Evo-Creo deate within a month or two of lurking.
Having the Creo's and ID-ots show on a regular basis the best they can do is really not good enough, and people argue that the entire debate is silly as it has nothing to do with the existence of god - and if there IS one he can do it anyway he likes - might be a trifle dull for those with no interest in the subject who have seen it all before. But it serves a educational purpose to those Newbies who think the Borg's series of 'god-did-it' books are in any way scientifically credible.
And argumentative bastards like me can have fun too...
Good points, Abaddon. I hadn't yet detected hooberus' slide towards IDiotism (love that term!). I know from reading ICR material, though, that those folks are not about to be backsliders. They're vehement that many lights in the IDiot world are compromisers at best, and heretics at worst. It's pretty entertaining.
Your point that newbies to this board ought to have exposure to new concepts is particularly good. I think that's why a lot of old-timers keep up with it.
I used to think that Stephen Jay Gould's notion of "non-overlapping magisteria" was intellectually valid, but in view of arguments by authors like Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens, I no longer do. However, I do think that it's a way for people who, for emotional reasons, simply must hang on to some sort of belief in a god, to justify doing so.
AlanF
Well that just proves the point of how unqualified wtbs "researchers" really are, since they can't make a simply distinction between scientific paper and pseudoscience, something you learn still as a freshman, that is if you haven't already learned that in high school.
I forgot the details but didn't they already quote that Adventist boy in one of their older publications and claimed he was a biologist? lmao. And of course, considering how "encouraging" they are of higher education we can expect that standard and general quality of their writing will slip even further.
I just feel sorry for all those kids reading that crap and missing out on desperately needed education.
Where is Hooberus when you need him?
Trying to untie the laces on Tophat's slip-ons - he should be with us in a day or two. HS
Good God - I mean even the WTBTS no longer says the earth is 49,000 years old. It is those Godamn scientific facts keep getting in the way. Sad that a well respected university has to put disclaimers for people like Behe.
It would be a bit like Imperial College London having to put a disclaimer to potential undergraduates in the Earthquake Engineering department that they had a JW professor who was teaching that there has been an increase in earthquakes since 1914.
PS Abbaddon - love the new Phrase IDiotism
