How can Babylon the Great be the WORLD of false religion? (page 6)

Jeffro

Sure. Feel free to point out where you think I’m wrong.

PioneerSchmioneer

In other words, according to critical analysis (which all scholars follow) your view is not sound if your method is not sound.

Claiming your view is sound because it "matches" with with another scholar is called "arguing from authority," which is a logical fallacy. That is not a sound way to produce anything in critical methodology.

You two were wrong from the start.

Jeffro

I do not assert that my views are correct because they are consistent with scholarship. I have committed no fallacy.

PioneerSchmioneer

When you learned the scientific method in either high school or college, and I am sure you learned how to validate someone's work, the critical method, etc?

This is why you can't say something like, "My views are consistent with scholarship" to prove a point. That doesn't prove a point. The Watchtower does it all the time (and in fact cults do it--it's a big cult move to try to impress people). It's a fallacy. You can't prove anything by citing a professional or "expert."

There are no real "experts" in anything. In academia there are only conclusions and theories which are changing all the time. All we can do is check someone's method at arriving at their answer.

So when anyone says what you did, they usually do it with lots of emotion and don't like to hear that it doesn't prove anything.

Jeffro

Your tangential and entirely speculative meta-analysis isn’t particularly helpful. Feel free to offer something in relation to the content.

I’m not remotely interested in your distortion of my comment that my views are consistent with mainstream scholarship, nor high-sounding sophistry amounting to ‘we can’t really know anything about anything’.

PioneerSchmioneer

You can just skip what I said and offer a list of those scholars to the other guy and prove your original point.

That will learn me.

ThomasMore

Jeffro,

That was prophetic language, not historical recollection.

Phizzy

I think PioneerSchmioneer makes a good point or two that we Armchair Scholars should take note of, that a true open minded view of what is being studied has to be based upon our own properly done Critical Analysis, i.e we really read the material, use our own Critical Thinking skills, and then our doubts or previous bias are either confirmed or we change our view.

Just back to the Thread Title , without going in to my opinion on the 1st Century identity of B the G in the mind of John of Patmos, J.W's and other people misinterpreting Scripture, miss the point that every Bible Writer insists his predictions will be fulfilled shortly after the time in which he wrote, "John" in The Revelation makes this plain, to look for a later fulfillment than that "short time" is plain silly, IMHO.

Jeffro

PioneerSchmioneer:

You can just skip what I said and offer a list of those scholars to the other guy and prove your original point.

🤦‍♂️. I thought there ‘weren’t any real experts’ and ‘appealing to scholarship is fallacious’. 🙄 But since I’ve done my own analysis of the primary sources, it hardly matters.

It seems that your irrelevant tangential rant about methodology is a reflection of some disagreement with one or more aspects of my views, but your reluctance to deal with actual content may belie some outlandish personal view of your own. Happy to be proved wrong.

Your posts generally seem quite cogent, so it may just be entrenchment in a particular style of academia that got you on your irrelevant tangent. In any case, quit the ad hominem nonsense and address content if you care to.

PioneerSchmioneer

Jeffro,

I hate to break this to you, but I was being sarcastic.

As you notice, my comment ended with this oddly worded statement:

That will learn me.

Perhaps that is the way you usually speak, but it is bad grammar where I come from. That was a clue that I was not serious.

Your claim in a debate that your comment aligns with what scholars say is not in line with rules of critical thinking methodology because it is a creates a logical fallacy known as an "argument from authority."

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

Don't be mad at me. After leaving the Watchtower, I taught critical analytical religious studies for almost 30 years. Though I am retired today, the rules haven't changed.

Neither of you have a leg to stand on because you both broke the rules. Crying won't help. Arguing about it just makes you look more and more uneducated.

I really don't know you. I was just commenting. Get mad at me all you want. I don't make this stuff up.

How can Babylon the Great be the WORLD of false religion?

Share this