Arguing With a Believer Is Like Playing Chess (page 2)

wha happened?

It really is a no win discussion. when they get cornered all they do is make up straw man arguments and/or make stuff up. That's why I don't bother anymore. No matter how wrong they are they always walk away with that shit eating grin as if they just defended the truth.

flipper

WAC- Good thread guy ! Yes it is like playing chess- good analogy. Also like playing chess, a person has to come at their opponent from an angle that they are not expecting . An angle they missed or have not considered . I'm trying to accomplish that with my older witness daughter right now. Still at the early stages . Trying to implement Steve Hassan's book in my methods to help her get out of the cult. I'll call you sometime and get your take this weekend. Peace out guy- hope you are doing well ! Peace out, Mr. Flipper

Layla33

I don't argue because it is circular debating. If people are indoctrinated to the point JWs are, it is very difficult to have a logical conversation on a variety of topics, much less a debate.

Dogaradodya

You mean, guys, you can't mate a dub?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU_QR_FTt3E

jgnat

I don't know how well this comes out. This is a "thought map" I drew out for a fundamentalist the last time I went head to head.

V

I have had GRADUAL success by using JW's own programming against them. All you have to do is undermine the "holier-than-thou" status that JWs feel about their religion by capitalising on their own religious bullying. First and fundamental step to deconstruction.

Always state your comments from a point of personal revelation, not a leading argument. For example, "I realise now that the Faithful and Discreet Slave is really just a group of men, trying their best. When you get down to it, you cannot base your faith on men's words..."

Discuss history of "false religion:" pagan backgrounds (holidays), failed teachings (sun revolves around earth/Gallileo), worldly involvement (support governments).
COMPARE: Are Witnesses completely free of this? DO NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION FOR THEM

(answers: celebration of Christmas, Cross, old light all after 1919 "cleansing", UN NGO status)

Discuss cults, what makes a cult? (JW will usually answer, "following one person.")
COMPARE: Where Witnesses ever like this? DO NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION FOR THEM

(answers: Russel, Rutherford were sole leaders and "FDS" of the time. Rutherford was "Judge", Russel was "Pastor", both lived in luxury, mandated doctrine, both accepted as used by God to this day.)

Discuss fringe religions (Mormons, Scientology). Weird claims (Mormons: golden tablets, holy underwear, lost tribe).
COMPARE: Did Witnesses ever make weird claims? DO NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION FOR THEM

(answers: Beth Sarim and return of "princes", failed dates, weird medical facts such as aluminum, vaccinations)

garybuss

I've always thought debating a believing Jehovah's Witness was like being in a pissing contest with a skunk. It's like trying to reason with a drunk. My friend told me that debating a Witness is like putting a pig in a prom dress. You can do it, but you get tired, dirty, AND it pisses off the pig.

The Oracle

hmmmm....

what would you call debating with a JW when you are a JW,

and you're also an elder?

It's an interesting dynamic let me tell you.

I use a lot of V type tactics. It's basically discussions.

Interestingly they view me as the authority, so I can use that influence to hammer some pretty interesting points home that are not "technically" apostate.

I love emphasising JW history and past teachings. You can't deny history. When my fellow JWs try to deny that we taught that, I pounce all over them and make them face our sordid past.

I have to admit that it is fun on a certain level to do this, but far more important is the fact that it is literally forcing the listener to open up his mind and is breaking down his/her defenses.

It's all about freeing minds...

The Oracle

Arguing With a Believer Is Like Playing Chess

Share this