Aron-Ra: Meteorology and the Flood
I don't know, but doesn't anyone else find the relentless "why are believers so stupid" attitude of Aron Ra a bit tiresome?
I feel it important to quote an American lawyer from 1900th century named Ingersoll,:
Who the hell could possibly love and worship a father that drowned all his children in a flood..???
@SBF, I can see that. He isn't like that all the time, and he had a video recently where Anthony Magnabosco was teaching him Street epistemology. Magnabosco, unlike Aron-Ra or Dillahunty or Dawkins, is no Rottweiler. He's calm and just asks questions, studies his results and looks for improvement. Interesting guy, and interesting to see Aron-Ra admit he has a problem in that area.
Magnabosco's approach is very interesting. He tries to never debate facts but only investigate the reasons for beliefs - epistemology. I think it has a lot of potential for helping JWs.
doesn't anyone else find the relentless "why are believers so stupid" attitude of Aron Ra a bit tiresome? - SBF
There is room for Aaron Ra and Magnabosco.
I saw/met Aaron Ra and his family in a Glasgow pub. (He was giving a presentation on creationism) They reminded me of a cross between an American JW family I once knew and the Munsters. His wife is quite cheerful by comparison with the man himself. She is a teacher. He says they met on a forum. He offered to prove to anyone that God doesn't exist. She took him up on the challenge, he convinced her, and they live happily ever since. His son is a bright young chap with similarly strong opinions. In the rest room, as Americans call it, he explained to me how Scottish swing doors that swing opposite directions wouldn't pass American regulations because they are dangerous. I guess he may be right, but I couldn't get as excited about the topic. I am not as interested in creationism either. To me, evoltution seems like a good explanation for the variety of life, whereas creationism is a poorer explanation. But I don't rule out possibilities, including ideas humans haven't devised yet, or are possibly incapable of coming up with at all because of our limited intelligence.
evoltution seems like a good explanation for the variety of life
Evolution is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt. It is as certain as the fact that planet earth is not flat. Oh that's right you won't affirm that the earth is not flat.
creationism is a poorer explanation
Creationism is a superstitious delusion.
Evolution is too big a thing to be a fact. Facts are small things and relatively meaningless. Interpretations are large things and full of meaning.
For examlple take these statements about reality:
World War 2 began in 1939 - is a fact.
World War 2 was a result of the failed policy of appeasement - is an interpretation.
Evolution is much closer to the second statement in terms of interpretative scope. The more focused a statement the more closely it resembles as fact. The wider in scope, and full of meaning, the more it resembles an interpretation rather than a fact. But if we want to be pedantic, ultimately there are no pure facts, as such, but only interpretations. It's all a matter of degree. Evolution is much too grand an idea to be confined within a small box labelled fact.
Why bother disproving every single fable of a whole mythical book?
Evolution is much too grand an idea to be confined within a small box labelled fact - SBF
No it isn't.
I was responding to your statement "evoltution seems like a good explanation for the variety of life whereas creationism is a poorer explanation".
Evolution explains that living things from humans to trees descended from a common ancestor over millions of years. This is a simple irrefutable fact at the heart of evolution as contrasted to creationism.
But if we want to be pedantic, ultimately there are no pure facts,
Nobody except you wants to be pedantic. As usual.