Apostate Logical Fallacies -- Part 1

by logansrun 43 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Ravyn

  I put up with emotional abuse and scandal for years and years, so did my parents and their parents. it was always 'wait on jehovah--he will fix it in his own due time...' so i agree with you logansrun. My deconversion happened from logic, but it included an emotional scandal that took the breath right out of me. However i think I would have recovered and stayed a JW IF IT HAD NOT BEEN FOR THE LOGICAL DISCREPANCIES THAT THE EMOTIONAL SCANDAL MADE ME READY TO ACCEPT.

  I have posted this ad infinitum and I am sure many here are sick of my story---but again here is the link to my deconversion story and I think I am not one in a million ....but one OF a million....

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/9/49422/1.ashx

  Ravyn
• 

  talesin

  it's great to read threads like this. it confirms the rightness of leaving escaping the WTBTS.

  ravyn, tks for posting the link for your story. i just read it and am horrified (not shocked) at your experiences. i'm happy you have everything written down and, i hope, well distributed. you are not the only one who has done this. Just knowing there are people like you out there makes me feel stronger in my resolve to do the same. i share your reason for waiting for publication.
• 

  observador

  logansrun, you said:

  Is it any wonder that one of the reasons why everyone feels Ray Franz's Crisis of Conscience was so valuable to them is it's honesty and lack of personal attacks? Rarely does Franz engage in emotionalism or ad hominems in his book -- something many of us can learn from.

  This is what you think. I don't think so! Ray Franz is a very skilled writer. He makes "personal atacks" in a way that you may not notice. I'll give you an example: would you want something more detrimental than saying that a GB member falls asleep in the middle of a GB full body session? Now, go back to the book and read it again and notice how graciously he says that.

  This is a subtle way of doing what you say he doesn't. And like this there are several other examples.

  I, however, am very grateful for his two works, specially CoC, because he shows what the WTBTS really is, despite of HOW he does it.

  Remember, Ray had been a long time JW when he wrote the book and he had a lot of experience doing it for... the WTBTS. So, by being subtle, he merely does what the WTBTS has been doing for the past 130 years. My hats off to him!

  So, if you look again at the above quote, you'll see shades of the same problem you are trying to expose, namely generalization, since not everyone feels the way you feel.

  I am thankful to you, though, for showing how balance and objectivity are important in our views of the people still traped in the movement.

  Observador.
• 

  avengers

  Here's one.

  One of their own prophets has said: "All Kretenzers are liars".

  If this is true then this Kretenzer speaks the truth.
  That would mean that not all Kretenzers are liars.

  He would be speaking the truth.
  If he is speaking the truth saying all Kretenzers are liars he would be lying.

  (How do you keep a moron busy.?) hahah.........joke...
• 

  Simon

  I agree with the points made.

  However, isn't it true that most of us never really have any dealings with "the organisation" as such ... it's too big. Most opinions are based on the experiences with the local elders etc ... and that becomes the part of the WTS that people judge and really, the only thing they can.

  If lots of people tell the same or similar stories then it can be reasonably argued that "the organisation" is like that.

  I do think though that any arguments or criticism should be valid and fair or else it lessens their impact considerably.
• 

  ISP

  I think the observations made by some from which they seek to draw a wider inference are reasonable.

  If you went to a chinese restaurant and were sick thereafter, you might conclude that you do not like chinese food. Thats not unreasonable. You can't expect those who have a hard time with the WTS to do a survey of 1000s so as to make a more convincing picture.

  I wouldn't be bothered necessarily about satisfying the theoretical tests of logic. By the time you are done, you will have lost the point.

  ISP
• 

  logansrun

  Observador,

  Is it any wonder that one of the reasons why everyone feels Ray Franz's Crisis of Conscience was so valuable to them is it's honesty and lack of personal attacks? Rarely does Franz engage in emotionalism or ad hominems in his book -- something many of us can learn from.

  This is what you think. I don't think so! Ray Franz is a very skilled writer. He makes "personal atacks" in a way that you may not notice. I'll give you an example: would you want something more detrimental than saying that a GB member falls asleep in the middle of a GB full body session? Now, go back to the book and read it again and notice how graciously he says that.

  So he makes "gracious personal attacks?" Huh?

  This is a subtle way of doing what you say he doesn't. And like this there are several other examples.

  I, however, am very grateful for his two works, specially CoC, because he shows what the WTBTS really is, despite of HOW he does it.

  You have a problem with "HOW" he does it?

  So, if you look again at the above quote, you'll see shades of the same problem you are trying to expose, namely generalization, since not everyone feels the way you feel.

  Now you're just being pedantic. The vast majority of ex-dubs I've met have commented at the non-bitter style of Ray. Come on.

  I am thankful to you, though, for showing how balance and objectivity are important in our views of the people still traped in the movement.

  You're welcome.

  Bradley
• 

  logansrun

  Simon,

  If lots of people tell the same or similar stories then it can be reasonably argued that "the organisation" is like that.

  But, Simon for every bad experience you have you will find a "good" one. Just read the pages of the WT and you will see tale after tale of how nice, friendly, helpful and clean the JWs are. If one were to only read their literature they would get the wrong impression. If one were to only visit this site, they too would get the wrong impression. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, albeit leaning towards this site, mind you. I just get the feeling many posters here don't really realize this and uncritically accept just everything that is said here.

  Bradley
• 

  logansrun

  ISP,

  If you went to a chinese restaurant and were sick thereafter, you might conclude that you do not like chinese food. Thats not unreasonable.

  Actually, no it wouldn't. Just one bad experience in a Chinese restaurant does not mean all Chinese restaurants are like that. That would be very unreasonable. Actually, you help prove my point by this illustration -- thank you.

  You can't expect those who have a hard time with the WTS to do a survey of 1000s so as to make a more convincing picture.

  It's not a matter of taking surveys, it's a matter of using the 'noggin and thinking about the situation. JWs have a very distorted view of their own religion -- it seems so do former members on many occassion.

  I wouldn't be bothered necessarily about satisfying the theoretical tests of logic.

  Nothing I said was "theoretical." On the contrary, it was very "common-sensical."

  By the time you are done, you will have lost the point.

  I agree that things can be over-analyzed. But, more often than not, they are under-analyzed.

  Bradley
• 

  joannadandy

  Great thread Logan!

  I totally agree. But while I think a lot of lurkers do come here, I think a lot more, active and vocal posters come here for support and understanding. It's a group building strategy that humans all need to create bonds and cohesiveness by telling story. On an ex-jw forum therefore you hear stories about all the awful things that happened to us as dubs. This is what brings us together and sets our group apart from a shriners club meeting, namely our displeasure with JW's.

  That being said, I totally agree that it is problematic for those who do lurk, and I have always cringed when things become especially hateful and generalizing because it means someone gets to turn off what is being said. I often think how I would have reacted to such statements had I still been in, but with questions.

  I have posted before about how this can be harmful, tho not as throughly and well thought out as you, to those who are trying to leave or have serious questions. If anything it causes us to feed into the very behaviors jw's label apostates as having. How many times did we hear how they are just "hateful, and vengeful" so much so that they are "blinded to reason". Sometimes it's true. (and again, that is their own generalization that all apostates wear sandwhich boards with phone numbers on them and scream at the end of conventions).

  Excellent post, and I totally agree...but then again...it is human nature. We are not all master debate champs. And honestly you have to consider, who is more important. People who may or may not be here watching in the dark, and who may or may not leave, or people who need to heal? I would counter that both are equally important, but that you can't please everyone, and eventually we all fall into traps of becoming emotional and sometimes irrational. I mean, it's religion for chrissakes. It's an emotional topic no matter what you are discussing. I find your tips helpful, and well taken, but honestly--people are still going to post from the heart and rather quickly sometimes, without really thinking of those invisible lurkers.