The Watchtower & Logical Fallacies (Long) (page 2)

flipper

DARKLIGHTER- " Reason has nothing to fear from information ". Very true. The WT society puts Jehovah's Witnesses under " information control" where they are not allowed to access ANY information outside the JW thought process. It is what mind control cults do when they get desperate to maintain members and keep them controlled so as NOT to leave. And they instill phobia's in the individual witnesses to keep them fearful of even finding out different information. Like " Satan and the demons " will get you. You'll become " worldly and sinful ". You'll become " independent on yourself not God" and so forth. All of this instilled to keep them from leaving and finding freedom. Bastards. Great write up by you ! Peace out, Mr. Flipper

TD

argumentum ex silentio

The argument from silence is a logical fallacy when used deductively. Conclusions must be based on what our sources do tell us, not on what they don't. A common example in religious thought is the idea that anything not sanctioned in the Bible is forbidden:

"So under the Law, the only God-authorized use of blood was on the altar to make atonement for the lives of he Israelites, who were seeking Jehovah's forgiveness" (The Watchtower June 15, 2004 p.15)

In the above quote, the argument from silence is used to support the idea that the "Use" of blood is forbidden today.

hasty generalization

What is true for the sample is inferred to be true of the whole:

"The Creator chose to view blood as having an elevated significance, reserving it for one special use that could save many lives. It was to play a vital role in covering sins (atonement). " (Ibid)

In the above quote, the fallacy of generalization is used to support the idea that transfusion medicine would constitute disrespect for the Ransom.

equivocation

Basing a conclusion on ambiguous terms.

"God decreed that humans could eat animal meat to sustain life, but they could not take in blood." (Ibid p.16)

"Hence for Christians, shunning blood included not taking it in for "medical" reasons." (Ibid p. 21)

In the quotes above the specific acts of consumption and transfusion are both referred to as "Taking in" blood. However referring to two separate acts with the same generic term does not establish any sort of equivalency between them. Drinking a glass of water and drowning in a lake could both be described as "Taking in water" but that fact does not make them equivalent acts.

daniel-p

This sould be in the Best Of section.

Doubting Bro

BTTT & marking for later.

Hopscotch

Fantastic post darkl1ght3r. I particularly liked your comments for fallacy #10, however they were all excellent. Thanks for all the time and effort you put into this.

Hopscotch

darkl1ght3r

Thanks for all the positive reviews everyone. I apologize for the formatting. It seems like if you fix one thing it screws up 5 others somehow. Criticism is also welcome. :)

Mickey mouse

Bookmarking. Thanks.

badboy

Another logical fallacies(not sure if mentioned)

Appeal to authority

It is commonly believed....................

LUKEWARM

Bookmarking

Thank you Benjamin!

badboy

I have thought of an interesting fallacious argument.

suppose I said that Jacob and esau smith being baptised/christened the same day were twins because in the bible jacob and esau were twins in the bible.

If someone argued that they couldn' be twins because the bible might be untrue,you have a fallacious argument

The Watchtower & Logical Fallacies (Long)

Share this