Posts by darkl1ght3r

32

Dating in the Real World...

by darkl1ght3r in

...or, love stinks.

i am so unprepared for this.

i feel like a kid just walking into willy wonka's chocolate factory.

darkl1ght3r

True True, Mrs. Jones5. But i still need to vent.

Rrrgh. The fromatting thing drives me insane. For someone whos boarderline OCD/anal-retentive/perfectionist like me... it makes me want to put my keyboard through my moniter.

32

Dating in the Real World...

by darkl1ght3r in

...or, love stinks.

i am so unprepared for this.

i feel like a kid just walking into willy wonka's chocolate factory.

I am so unprepared for this. I feel like a kid just walking into Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory. Overwhelmed at how awesome and fun everything looks, but not even comprehending how easy it is to screw up. I'm lost.

Relationships are such a simple formula in the JW universe, which basically boils down to: 'Submit, Wifey! Submit! Goooooood girl! Whos a good girl? You are! Now go fetch me my slippers and Watchtower.' I never bought into the whole JW 'wifely subjection' concept (some might say 'subjugation'). For a marriage, it just seemed to make more sense for the husband and wife to be on equal footing, while excercising mutual respect for one another. Why throw some kind of arbitrary hierarchy into the mix? Esp. one that is demeaning and insulting to women? (See Awake! - August 22, 1967 pg. 27) But, as with many other JW concepts, their philosophy on dating and marriage is at odds with reality. When I was first thinking of doing a rant on this subject, I went back and looked at the latest 'light' on the topic from the YPA book, under the section Dating, Love, and the Opposite Sex. The very first sentence in chapter 29 says, "In many lands dating is viewed as a romantic means of entertainment, a fun activity." Ahhh, the predictable setup by the "brothers" to indicate that dating is NOT to be romantic, entertaining, OR fun. Boiling down their advice...

1. Don't worry about looks. The dirty, smelly, unkempt, middle-aged pioneer who sits in the corner trying to ward off "demons" can give you every bit as much fulfillment in marriage as that hot young stud/babe you've been thirsting for. As long as they put Jehovah first.

2. Worry about how their publisher record card looks. 10+ hour-per-month publishers are the bottom of the barrel and are also boarder-line apostates. You need someone who is over 30, putting in 90+ hours per month, volunteering at KH builds, has responsibilities, serves 'where the need is greater', AND feels like sh!t because they can't do more. Prime choice for a mate that one is.

3. Take the 80-year-old P.O. and his wife with you on a "date". You know, that way you're both too scared to be yourselves, and you're terrified that you might slip and reveal your X-Files obsession. You should go to a zoo, wear a ridiculous 80's sweater, and point blankly at unremarkable things. This is fun. You should be home by 8:00 pm to study your Watchtower or prepare a presentation for the field ministry.

4. Speaking of ministry... The BEST way to get to know someone is out in field service. Do they give a zealous presentation? Are they quick with the scriptures? Do they show genuine fellow feeling? If they want to take a break at 10:30... move on. Leave that future apostate to the birds.

5. If you touch your prospective mate anywhere other than their hand, you will not only contract an STD, but you should prepre to be interrogated regarding your "loose conduct". ("Now tell me sister... how did it feel when he touched you... "there". Go slow and use lots of adjectives. I want to get this on tape...")

6. Etc... etc... etc...

Alright, alright... I'm getting a little extreme. But how far from the truth am I? (No... Not that "Truth". I'm REALLY far from that one.)

This is funny... Chapter 29 pp. 2 starts, "Dating was not the custom in Bible times." That's their way of saying, "The Bible really has nothing to say on the matter, but we're going to legislate how it should be done anyway." I love the second subheading in that chapter too, The DARK SIDE of Dating.Holy sh!t!!! I'll fall to the Dark Side of the Force and become the evil apprentice of Emperor Palpatine if I unleash my lightsaber too quick! This is also good too...

***yp chap. 29 pp. 226-228 Am I Ready to Date?***

Even so, a biological fact of life comes into play: The more you keep company with a member of the opposite sex, the more sexual desire can grow—whether you want it to or not. (See pages 232-3.) It is the way all of us are made! Until you are older and more in control of your feelings, dating may simply be too much for you to handle. Unfortunately, many youths find this out the hard way.

And WHO is responsible for that "biological fact"? I love (hate?) the reasoning used here. Their essentially saying that we were MADE TO SIN. Gee, thanks God. If you program a computer to execute a certain task, who's fault is it when the computer executes that task? Sure we're not computers, but our biological urges are the most diffcult impulse to resist. This makes perfect sense in evolutionary terms, but not so much from a "design" perspective, at least if you're going to deem the act a "sin" in certain circumstances. And the last part... "Unfortunately, many youths find this out the hard way." Find what out? That sex is frickin great? What's so "unfortunate" about that? *sigh*

*** yp chap. 30 p.236 Am I Ready for Marriage?***

MARRIAGE is not a game. God intended for husbands and wives to forge a permanent bond, closer than that with any other human. (Genesis 2:24) A marriage mate is thus someone you will stick to—or be stuck with—for the rest of your life.

So what's wrong with this statement? Consider...

*** yp chap. 30p. 237 Am I Ready for Marriage?***
Many youths also have unrealistic expectations regarding sexual relations. Said one young man who married at age 18: “After I got married I found out that the great thrill of sex wears off very soon and then we started having some real problems.”
Yeah, that's what happens when you tell kids they can't have sex unless they're married. Biology wins. Somehow. Eventually. Every time. And it doesn't give a rat's ass if you actually 'get along' with your partner. Yes, some are better at controlling urges than others, this too is a BIOLOGICAL FACT, not an indication of "sinful tendencies". So a poor unsuspecting 20 year old is feeling his "biological imperitive" burning inside him. He seeks to do the right thing and marries a young good-looking sister that he's been semi-friends with for a while. They go on all the "kosher-style" dates that the Society recommends. Everything's gravy. She's a strong publisher, comes from a faithful family, has all "qualities" of a "Christian Wife" the Society says she should. They get married... and find out they absolutely can't STAND each other. This is because they were only allowed to 'get to know' each other in the whitewashed, sterilized, sanitized, FAKE, environment of the JW community.
What they're really getting to know is not actually the other individual, but rather that individuals best impersonation of the sterotypical "Witness" the society says they should be. And that IS NOT a real person. It is a fantasy.
So, cut to ... ME. This is the pitch that I bought hook, line, and sinker. I really thought all that bullsh!t was legit. Well I'm divorced now. A lot of good that "three-fold-chord" did me. So here I am, single, 29, and with NO concept of what dating in the real world is like. I've gone on prebably 6 or 7 dates with about 4 or 5 different women in the last six months. None amounted to anything. Self esteem isn't too much of a problem, I've learned that I can attract good looking women. The problem is getting them to stick around. I find out that a hot female is interested in me and I turn into a bumbling idiot.
I was flirting with a gorgeous 20 year old for months. Didn't really push too hard because the age difference made me slightly uncomfortable (she was 19 when we started this), but we became pretty good friends anyway. I didn't want to instigate a romance, but I decided if that's what she wants I would let her pursue it and then go from there. She was boy-crazy (meaning 'more than one') and I knew it, but hey... she kept talking to ME. Alot. Well eventually things ramped up, and she said she wanted a relationship. And I'm thinking, "She's soooo young and immature!!! But she's HOT!!!" She's telling me how much she can't wait to see me, she misses me, that I belong with her...etc, blahblahblah. So, me... despite my better judgement says, "Eh, what the hell?" At this point, I'm still numb from my JW exit, I'm not emotionally attached to this girl, I honestly did not expect a serious relationship, but she's obviously sprung on me (for the moment), and I DO like her as a person, so give in and say "Yeah, I've got feelings for you too." Well our "official" infatuation lasts about a week, and then I'm asking her "How was your weekend?" And she starts telling me how she cruised up and down the coast on the back of some OTHER dudes street bike!!! WTF?!?! Needless to say... we're just "friends" now. LOL!
It's a good thing I went into this with eyes wide open, totally expecting the worst. If I were a lesser man I might be pissed. But I knew from the get-go that a 'real' relationship would not be possible with this girl due not only to her issues, but also my own. The funny thing is, I don't regret it. I'm not mad at her. I chalk it all up to experience. She essentially, COMPLETELY, lived up to my expectations. Which is sad.
But any way... that's what inspired this rant. Here I am... pushing the big 30, and learning things that 'normal' people learned in their teens. I was a near perfect JW child. I did everything "right". And of course you see how that turrned out. So I'm stuck with all that left-over JW baggage, misconceptions, and warped world view, and now I'm trying to figure out the opposite sex. I mean REAL women. Not the JW "Stepford Wives" type women. You know, the ones that actually have brains and use them. The ones that come equipped with thieir own thoughts, feelings, desires, and kung fu grip.
I'm still just a kid. Just a kid trying to make a life for myself, and getting a very late start at it.
Wish me luck.

19

The Watchtower & Logical Fallacies (Long)

by darkl1ght3r in

- w86 7/15 p. 20 par.

3 p. 37 par.

- w86 7/15 p. 10 par.

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. :)

19

The Watchtower & Logical Fallacies (Long)

by darkl1ght3r in

- w86 7/15 p. 20 par.

3 p. 37 par.

- w86 7/15 p. 10 par.

darkl1ght3r

Why is formatting such a pain in the ass on this site? It won't let me fix the text on the OP for some reason.

19

The Watchtower & Logical Fallacies (Long)

by darkl1ght3r in

- w86 7/15 p. 20 par.

3 p. 37 par.

- w86 7/15 p. 10 par.

darkl1ght3r

In another thread I said this:

Actually I started going back to school while I was in, and it was a class on Expository Composition and constructing a logical argument that got the ball rolling on my exit ... I remember one section in the textbook (I loved that book) that had a list of logical fallacies to avoid when constructing a convincing argument. It read like a generic outline for damn near everything I’ve ever read from the “F&DS”. Blew my mind.

Well that gave me the idea to post that list of fallacies with examples from Watchtower publications. Some might come from common thoughts and ideas in the JW community, but others I'll pull from literature. Unfortunately, my WT CD Rom was confiscated along with almost all of my other literature, and I only have a very small supply of literature I haven't already "placed" with "Mr. Burns" who lives on "Fireplace Ln." (Nice man, VERY "receptive" to the literature, if you catch my drift.) So when I started this write-up I had very limited resources, but fortunately, I’ve recently acquired a copy of the 2008 WT Library!!! This made my search much easier obviously.

The book I'm referring to is called Good Reasons with Contemporary Arguments.

It should be noted that many of these examples can fall under more than one fallacy.

Without further a due… Behold the staggering intellect of the Faithful & Discreet Slave…

FALLACY #1 - Bandwagon Appeals

Book Example: “It doesn’t matter that I cheat on a test because everyone else does.”

Explanation: This argument suggests that everyone is doing it, so why shouldn't you? Close examination may reveal that in fact everyone really isn't doing it - and in any case, it may not be the right thing to do.

Watchtower Example: "You can be among those to whom the words of Malachi chapter 3 will apply: "'They will certainly become mine,’ Jehovah of armies has said, ... 'And I will show compassion upon his son who is serving him'" (Malachi 3:17) Clearly, your faithfulness, which puts you in line to be saved, will then open to you "a blessing until there is no more want." What a marvelous prospect!" [Live With Jehovah's Day In Mind - pg. 191]

My Comments: This was a tough one to find because the WT prides itself on being the "narrow path to salvation” that only a select few have found. But the key lies in the last sentence. It indicates that all those who are truly "faithful" gain salvation. You want to be considered "faithful" don’t you? So EVERYONE who's "faithful" becomes a JW. Naturally. When the Bandwagon Appeal is looked at in this perspective, we see that it too is often used in Watchtower literature.

FALLACY #2 - Begging the Question

Book Example: “People should be able to use land any way they want to because using land is an individual right.”

Explanation: The fallacy of begging the question occurs when the claim is restated and passed off as evidence.

Watchtower Example:“Because apostates “originate with the world” and have its wicked spirit, “they speak what proceeds from the world and the world listens to them.”” - w86 7/15 p. 20 par. 22

My Comments: This is a truly childish mistake. It’s actually hard to make this one. So if the WT is going to make this mistake it would have to be in relation to apostates, their most desperate battlefront. In this case… what is the world? Naturally that is everything that the WT says it is. Therefore apostates are determined to be of “the world” based on the WTs definition of “what proceeds from the world.”

FALLACY #3 – Either /Or.

Book Example: “Either we build a new freeway crossing downtown or else there will be perpetual gridlock.”

Explanation: The either-or fallacy suggests that there are only two choices in a complex situation. This is rarely, if ever, the case.

Watchtower Example: “Every human on earth must choose between rulership by God and rulership by man.” - w86 2/1 p. 7

My Comments: Ahhhh a true WT classic. You are either with us or against us. You are either on God’s side or the Devils. Also known as the “false dichotomy”. Where is the middle ground? Where are the other perspectives? You either choose God or the Devil, choose life or death, choose the truth or lies, etc… In this case, choosing “rulership by God” means becoming a JW. Anything short of that means siding with the Devil. Billions of Christians on earth might dispute that point. Which is a reality that the WT will never acknowledge, hence making this a false dichotomy.

FALLACY #4 – False Analogies

Book Example: “The Serbian seizure of Bosnian territory was like Hitler’s takeover of Czechoslovakia in 1938, and having learned the hard way what happens when they give in to dictators, Western nations stood up to Serbian aggression.”

Explanation: Analogies always depend on the degree of resemblance of one situation to another. In this case the analogy fails to recognize that Serbia in 1993 was hardly like Nazi Germany in 1938.

Watchtower Example: “The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.” - ce chap. 3 p. 37 par. 34

My Comments: Another WT classic. They seem to enjoy churning out analogies that make no real world sense. Here they assume the order could not be achieved through using mere observation. Therefore the comparison of the “order of creation” to “picking numbers at random” is at least stupid, and at best dishonest. For example, obviously a beginning is first. You cannot have land plants without having land first. Animals need to eat plants (and each other) to survive; therefore animals should arrive after plants. Of course man would be last as the pinnacle of God’s creation. So we see based on simple (primitive/observational) logic, the order chosen was anything but random.

Also, this analogy fails and is dishonest because science does NOT, in no way shape or form, agree with the “general order” presented here. Animals (particularly sea creatures) MOST CERTAINLY came before land plants.

Also the genesis account does not say that the sun, moon, and stars became “discernable” at that stage. It says they were “MADE” and placed into the expanse (firmament).

FALLACY #5 – Hasty Generalization

Book Example: “We had three days this summer when the temperature reached an all time high; that’s a sure sign of global warming.”

Explanation: A hasty generalization is a broad claim made on the basis of a few occurrences. The debate over global warming takes into climate data for centuries. Individual climate events such as record hot days do not confirm trends.

Watchtower Example: “The clergy’s reaction to exposure was similar to that of Jezebel upon learning that Elijah had killed the prophets of Baal. She sent Jehovah’s faithful prophet a message, vowing to have him killed.”- w97 9/15 p. 14 par. 17

My Comments: Another tried-and-true WT tactic. Certainly A FEW clergymen have been angered by the JW message as we see in Russia right now. But, seriously, how many… or rather, what percentage of the clergy even know or care what the Witnesses believe? And what percentage of THAT percentage are angry about it? And what percentage of THAT percentage are angry enough to have the Witnesses killed???? PUh-leeeeeze.

FALLACY #6 – Name Calling

Book Example: [Hm. There was none for some reason… I guess it kinda speaks for itself though.]

Explanation: Name calling is as frequent in political argument as on the playground. Candidates are “accused” of being tax-and-spend-liberals, ultraconservatives, radical feminists, and so on. Rarely are these terms defined; hence they are meaningless.

Watchtower Examples:

“Apostates who hate former associates in Jehovah’s service no longer have such fellowship with God and Christ.” - w86 7/15 p. 10 par. 4

“We must also be on guard against extended association with worldly people. Perhaps it is a neighbor, a school friend, a workmate, or a business associate.” - w94 2/15 p. 24

“False religious doctrines such as “self-naughting” or character development to the extent where one becomes self-effacing by deadening all desire as taught by Buddhism and some false Christian sects are things advocating error.” - w56 7/15 p. 433 par. 10

“Satan now sustains this opposition to God with counterfeit teachings spread by deceitful religious ministers who “keep transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness.”” - w91 12/15 p. 26

“Some false teachers may formerly have been true Christians, but at one point they turned from truth to error.” - w00 10/15 p. 9

“Jesus spoke of the “evil slave,” a class that complains, “my master is delaying,” and starts to beat its fellow slaves. (Matthew 24:48, 49) Often, these individuals and their followers have no clear teachings of their own; they are interested only in destroying the faith of others.” - w00 10/15 p. 9

“This is so strikingly different from the self-righteous and sanctimonious stance of Christendom’s prominent ones.” - w84 5/15 p. 21 par. 9

“By 1919 it was apparent that Jehovah had passed judgment on Christendom—and indeed on all falsereligion.” - w89 4/15 p. 7 par. 10

“Antichrists have become particularly active during “the last days,” the time in which we now live. (2 Timothy 3:1) A key objective of these modern-day deceivers is to mislead people in regard to Jesus’ role as King of God’s Kingdom.” - w06 12/1 p. 6

“The flock of God worldwide is united in a “oneness in the faith” that stands in clear contrast to the divisions in worldly Babylonish religions, particularly those of Christendom.” - w76 7/1 p. 401 par. 4

“She also practices spiritual harlotry by lending her support to earth’s “kings,” or political rulers, receiving favors in return. This symbolic woman is none other than the false religions of the world.” - w06 12/1 p. 6

“Well, who has taken the lead in reviling and persecuting the 20th-century spiritual Israel? Has it not been apostate Christendom, through its proud clergy class?” - w83 11/15 p. 28

“Some of the Protestant clergy, a faction of Babylon the Great’s representatives in Canada, took these quotes to their political cronies in the Canadian government and denounced the Bible Students as seditious.” - w89 5/1 p. 4

My Comments: APOSTATE! APOSTATE! APOSTATE! Need I say more…? This list could go on and on and on. Feel free to point out any in this category that I might have left out.

FALLACY #7 – Non Sequitur

Book Example: “A university that can afford to build a new football stadium should not have to raise tuition.”

Explanation: A non sequitur (a Latin term meaning “it does not follow”) ties together two unrelated ideas. In this case, the argument fails to recognize that the money for new stadiums is often donated for that purpose and is not part of a university’s general revenue.

Watchtower Example: “That Jehovah’s Witnesses are stronger and more active now than ever before—and this in the face of worldwide opposition—is proof that Jehovah finds pleasure in what they are doing.” - w01 6/1 p. 17 par. 19

My Comments: Here we have an error because the claimed “proof” can be applied to any number of religions and organizations. For example, the Mormon faith also sees rapid growth and is also comparably active. Do they also have Jehovah’s approval? So called ‘Radical Islam’ has also seen a rise in numbers and they too are more active now than ever before. Do they also have Jehovah’s approval? Toyota Motor Corp. saw a rapid rise in production and sales during the 1980’s and 90’s. Is this proof that they too have Jehovah’s backing? Google is also stronger and more active than before. Are you getting the picture? All of these entities have achieved a measure of success despite battling their own version of “persecution” or “opposition”. Therefore strength and growth are NOT in themselves indicators of God’s backing.

FALLACY #8 – Oversimplification

Book Example: “No one would run stop signs if we had a mandatory death penalty for doing it.”

Explanation: This claim may be true, but the argument would be unacceptable to most citizens. More complex, if less definitive, solutions are called for.

Watchtower Example: “He knew from experience what many of Jehovah’s Witnesses today have found: Some sincere defenders of false religion eventually come to be among the strongest defenders of true religion.” - w07 9/1 p. 14

My Comments: The claim may be true, but it fails to take into account that many more defenders of so called “false religion” will NEVER become a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith. It also fails to recognize that many who do become JWs eventually leave and make the case that they were deceived, and that the JWs are themselves a “false religion”. Because these other factors are glossed over, the claim is worthless, except as deceitful propaganda.

FALLACY #9 - Polarization

Book Example: “Feminists are all man haters”

Explanation: Polarization, like name calling exaggerates positions and groups by representing them as extreme and divisive.

Watchtower Examples: “You do not have to be like worldly people whose main interest in life is pleasing self, pursuing a prestigious career or material wealth, with no thought of God.” - w86 1/1 p. 12 par. 9

“As far back as 1917 in Canada and the United States, the clergy instigated accusations of subversion against the Bible Students.” - w98 6/15 p. 18 par. 4

“Yes, the Catholic Church seems to be trying to shrug off the burden of past sins in order to regain its credibility in the court of public opinion.” - w98 3/1 p. 6

My Comments: Another Watchtower favorite, and closely related to the hasty generalization, and name calling, and the either/or fallacy. This is because it usually requires the lumping together of large groups into ONE undesirable category. The WT needs to present all other groups and organizations as inferior to itself so that those who don’t know any better will think that the Witnesses are the only ones with God’s backing.

FALLACY #10 – Post Hoc

Book Example:“I ate a hamburger last night and got deathly sick – must have been food poisoning.”

Explanation: The post hoc fallacy (from the Latin post hoc ergo hoc, “after this, therefore this”) assumes that things that follow in time have a causal relationship. In the above example, you may have simply started coming down with the flu – as would be obvious two days later.

Watchtower Example: “World events since 1914 clearly show that both Christ’s presence and “the conclusion of the system of things” began in that year.” - w06 3/15 p. 6

My Comments: Oh boy. 1914… the ULTIMATE post hoc fallacy. The error here results in the arbitrary linkage of correlation with causation. Simply because two events correlate in time, does not mean the first caused the second. One must ask, of ALL the dates thrown out there by Russell, Rutherford, and Franz, WHY was 1914 the only one retained? It is, of course, because that year also marked the outbreak of WWI.

A number of problems arise from this reasoning. 1) There is no scriptural basis for the 1914 date. 2) Despite what the Watchtower says, there were other wars prior to WWI that could also be considered global, and in which more people were killed. 3) WW1 was greatly eclipsed in significance by WWII, and no Bible prophecy pointed to it. 4) The Watchtower claimed at the time that 1914 would be the END of Armageddon, and not the BEGINNING of a war. 5) World events have NOT worsened since 1914. ALL indications show (believe it or not) improvement or at least stability on all statistics that would indicate “worsening conditions”. Crime rates are generally stable (and closely correlate with economic trends), more people comprise the ‘middle class’ than ever before, life expectancy is at an all time high, and advancements in science and medicine allow for a quality of life that is unprecedented in human history, and mankind is also more tolerant of other races and ideas than at any other time in its history. Certainly this is the BEST time to be alive, even with all of our many, many, problems. Hell, just look at the iPhone. How awesome is that?

FALLACY #11 - Rationalization

Book Example: “I could have done better in the test if I thought the course mattered to my major.”

Explanation: People frequently come up with excuses and weak explanations for their own and others’ behavior that avoid actual causes.

Watchtower Example: “ Eager to see the end of this evil system, Jehovah’s people have at times speculated about the time when the “great tribulation” would break out, even tying this to calculations of what is the lifetime of a generation since 1914. However, we “bring a heart of wisdom in,” not by speculating about how many years or days make up a generation, but by thinking about how we “count our days” in bringing joyful praise to Jehovah.” - w95 11/1 p. 17

My Comments: Slippery they are. Like snakes. If by “Jehovah’s people have at times speculated…” they really mean, “Our ENTIRE freaking history we, the Watchtower Society, have speculated…” The wording here makes it appear like it’s never been a big deal. As if, ‘Occasionally it came up in conversation between a few overzealous ones’. And that they, the ever wise and rational F&DS, are thankfully here just to clear up a minor misunderstanding. However in the very next sentence, they condemn their entire history and brush it aside, along with the weight of this change, and say essentially, ‘Forget about our past and just be glad we let you serve God.’

The funny thing is, by their choice of wording, they admit that prior to 1995 they had NOT been bringing in “a heart of wisdom”. So what exactly were they doing all that time?

FALLACY #12 – Slippery Slope

Book Example:“We shouldn’t grant amnesty to illegal immigrants now living in the United States because it will mean opening our borders to a flood of people from around the world who want to move here.”

Explanation: The slippery slope fallacy assumes that if the first step is taken, other steps necessarily follow.

Watchtower Example: [Get ready for this!] “Because the practice (Masturbation) is one “contrary to nature,” the masturbator pays a mental penalty. The habitual practice cripples his social and emotional development, hinders his attaining a healthful outlook and attitude toward the other sex and toward people in general. It can ‘turn the person inward’ upon himself, making him introverted. Or it can, and frequently does, lead into homosexuality, in which the person, not satisfied with his lonely sexual activity, seeks a partner for mutual sex play.” - w73 9/15 p. 566

My Comments: The slippery slope is also an over-used fear tactic to convince the rank & file to stay in line. You can likely come up with several more examples off the top of your head.

But really… LOL! If you want some laughs, I highly recommend reading the entire article in that Watchtower. The whole thing REEKS of being written by grumpy old men who can’t even ‘get it up’ any more. “If I can’t fiddle the diddle, then no one can! Humph!”

The article also commits a post hoc fallacy by using the reasoning that “If masturbation were natural, then why do people feel bad after doing it? Hmmm smarty pants?” Ummm let’s see, maybe because fundamentalist idiots like YOU have been telling people that they won’t get to pet the lions in the New System TM if they practice it!

It also makes the non sequitur statement that masturbation is abnormal, because “abnormal and mentally deranged people do it.” Brilliant!

It amazes me that these people think they’re in charge of others salvation. They shouldn’t be in charge of a taco stand.

FALLACY #13 – Straw Man

Book Example: “Environmentalists won’t be satisfied until not a single human being is allowed to enter a national park.”

Explanation: A straw man argument is a diversionary tactic that sets up another’s position in a way that can be easily rejected. In fact, only a small percentage of environmentalists would make an argument even close to this one.

Watchtower Example: “[E]volutionary theory assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen spontaneously from nonliving matter.” - ce chap. 4 p. 38 par. 2

My Comments: This fallacy is also frequently used in Watchtower literature. Often we see it used to argue against so-called “opposers”, the Trinity, and my personal favorite, evolution. The WT loves to present the other sides case for them. How else is the average JW going to hear about it, they’re not allowed to read anything that promotes ideas contrary to Watchtower teachings? So the Society gladly “informs” them of the other argument and usually presents it in a twisted fashion so that it appears in a way that would be disregarded my most reasonable people.

In the above case, they try to link the theory of evolution with the origin of life. Scientific theories that deal with the origin of life are usually considered under the term ‘Abiogenesis’. In many cases these theories utilize certain concepts and principles of evolution, but they have NO BEARING on Evolutionary theory itself. Evolutionary Biology, which is the type of evolution the Society is usually arguing against, ONLY deals with the way life forms change over time, and the mechanisms that drive those changes. Evolutionary theory has NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. For Evolution, it doesn’t matter HOW life got here, it only describes THE WAY life has changed over the past MILLIONS of years.

By way of example, what the Society is doing here is similar to doubting the validity of our understanding of the relativity of space and time simply because Einstein couldn’t tell us how the space and time came into existence! So because the actual origin of life is a subject that NO scientist really understands or knows much about (at least for certain, anyway), the Watchtower links it with Evolutionary Biology in an attempt to attach that same uncertainty to it in the minds of readers. The unsuspecting reader is left with the thought, “I don’t believe life came from random chance, so I can’t believe in evolution.” When in reality, those are two very separate ideas.

~~~~~~

In conclusion, the Watchtower really has no interest in creating a logically compelling argument. They only need to create arguments that the uncritical rank-and-file will gulp down without question. This is why their articles have an appearance of credibility and they use the language of logic, but this is all superficial. As we can all attest, their arguments do not hold up under scrutiny.

This is why ‘doubt’ is such an anathema to them. Doubt leads to curiosity which leads to questions. In all other worthwhile human endeavors doubt is a key element in making progress. If we do not question the status quo, if we do not doubt that this is the way things are (or must be), then there is no driving force for change, or to improve upon what already is.

Our awareness and familiarity with the above logical fallacies are sort of a ‘Bologna Detection Kit’ (…thank you Carl Sagan). They are a way to ‘test’ whether or not we are being deceived. If an individual or organization tells us that it is wrong to doubt what they are telling us, then they are almost for a certainty attempting to deceive us, be it knowingly or unknowingly. For how else can we have confidence in our beliefs if we do not put them through the most rigorous tests? Truth, real TRUTH is never harmed or faded by doubt and questioning, it is only refined. This is how we as a species have come to know what we know, and how we’ve advanced so far scientifically. All of these advancements came from men who were not content to be told what to think.

Turning our attention back to the Watchtower, we see that they seek to limit the active JWs exposure to other opinions and ideas, considering such things as ‘harmful’. Because they know how easily ones can become convinced of the Watchtower doctrines inadequacy. Those whose arguments are based on logic and evidence NEVER insist that we avoid learning the other side of the argument. Reason has nothing to fear from information. When an assertion is on shaky ground, the person presenting it is forced to violate certain rules of logic. So when we see numerous ‘shortcuts’ in critical thinking, as we see in the Watchtower, this should always raise a red flag. This is called reason. When we exercise our reason, it keeps us from falling victim to people and organizations that would seek to control us, or otherwise take advantage of us.

Thanks for reading!!!

Benjamin Spencer

30

Son of God vs.God

by Mazzie Brossmann in

does anyone know how many religons believe jesus was the son of god rather than god in human form?

those of you who are still christians, do any of you now believe jesus is god?.

darkl1ght3r

hi dark

how can you say chrstiendom is better biblically?

Not saying either is "better", merely that one view is more internally consistent, despite it being counterintuitive.

Trinity - a logical construct not one songle scriptural reference to 3 in 1, divinity of Jesus is not trinity btw.

Correct. The Trinity is NOT an explicit biblical teaching. Presonally, I beleive the reasoning used to get to that belief (three in one) is tenuous at best, although I can understand the rationale behind it. You are also correct in that the divintiy of Jesus does not automatically lead to the Trinity. I never said it did. But I do find the JW dogmatic assertion that God CANNOT be a Trinity, to be silly as well. By your logic you might even say mankind has a 'racial memory' of triune gods. Or do you pick and choose the 'racial memory evidence' you use in your favor?

Jehovah/YHWH is One God and Jesus is his actual son begotten, is a straight biblical reference no twisting needed at all. as apposed to the trinity that has to be read into it as a doctrine.

One God, and Jesus as his Son (completely seperate from him), is but one possible conclusion that can be reached from examining the scriptures. I simply don't feel it takes into account all scriptures. The vast majority of Christians share my opinion. (Oh, right. I forgot... they're not TRUE Christians.)

Let me explain it to you this way... Imagine that an alien scholar from Mars is visiting earth and was completely unfamiliar with Christianity and the Bible. The alien scholar was then given all the biblical manuscripts to study and asked to describe the God of Christianity. The alien becomes an expert in all the ancient biblical languages and then proceeds his investigation. After EXAMINING ALL SCRIPTURES THAT HAVE A SAY ON THE MATTER, this scholar would probably come to a conclusion similar to the one held by mainstream Christianity, at least in regards to the relationship between Jesus and God.

Why? Because this alien scholar doesn't care which is true and therefore has no need to cherry pick ONLY verses that support a particular view. He would likely say that the nature of this God is confusing and illogical, and that the Bible writers themselves did not understand this Gods nature and therefore were not able to describe it adequately in words.

I just completely disagree with you. To be honest I cannot understand how anyone that reads the bible, any version could believe Jesus is The Almighty God. THe bible clearly says he is God's son.

And the mainstream view takes that into account. The Bible itself also says Jesus is God, and is to be worshipped, and is equated numerous times to God himself. All while also describing him as "God's Son". Confusing isn't it? But while your view might be more 'comfortable', it also ignores much scriptural evidence. Simply because you don't LIKE a particular conclusion, doesn't make it not true. That's the entire problem with JW theology... (and religion in general, but the JWs are particularly bad due to their dogmatism).

If I wanted to get deeper I could find whole chapters making references to the father as the true God and Jesus serving him.

No need. We've all read the Trinity Brochure. Eventually I'll post some scriptures that I'd like you to explain. And you'll see what I'm talking about in that there are many many refrences that the JW view must ignore or otherwise gloss over, but ultimately have no response to.

58

Confessed my Doubts to my Wife

by cantleave in

well - i today i had the opportunity to tell my wife i no longer believe in the things that i have spent my life immersed in and that i didn't want my life run by 9 geriatrics in brooklyn.. her reaction was understandable her first questions was "what have you been reading"?.

i didn't mention this site but told her i was shocked by something i heard regarding the wts's ngo status with the un, dissapointed by the new light on the generation and disturbed by the flip flopping on blood fractions.

i explained how these things were at best hypocritical and at worst have meant some people have lost their lives unnecessarily because of the societies previous position.

darkl1ght3r

I see significant cause for optimism in your case. I confessed my doubts gradually over the course of 8 or 9 months and never got responses like that.

OtWO said, "You will not be sorry you did this, regardless of the fallout."

Very true my friend. I dealt with a good amount of fallout in my situation. But now that I'm on the other side of it, it's hard to describe how glad I am to be free from the claws of that monster. Regardless of what happens, you're entering a whole new world. And you're FREE to make the best and most of it.

Good Luck!!!

93

what is best evidence against noah's flood?......

by oompa in

keep it simple if possible........i like the ice core samples.........thanks, this was not my big issue but i may be able to use it.......oompa.

feel free to direct me to another thread btw...... or maybe i should read the second page of olins thread!.

darkl1ght3r

Reniaa, reniaa, reniaa...

Did you see the big bang? what proof do you have of the Big bang? Do you know with proof that time started with the big bang?

Did you see your own birth? What proof do you have that you were born? Did you see the volcano destroy Pompei 2000 years ago? How does anyone know that these events actually happened? The hard proof of the Big Bang is easilly accessable to anyone who wants to read about it. Something tells me you dont.

The bible tells me there was a flood, I klnow we have a racial memories of both flood and God across the world.

I've already told you "racial memories" are bullsh!t when it comes to hard evidence. Why do you simply regurgitate a claim after it's already been shown to be flawed? Simply because a belief is widespread does not make it true! "Racial memories" are not evidence!!! How can you not see what's wrong with your reasoning here?!?! It might be a good reason to start an investigation, but hard evidence is required for further corroboration. Unfortunately there is NO evidence for either a global flood, OR your God.

LOGIC, reniaa... LOGIC.

People like to deal in absolutes so the newest idea becomes a 'fact' rather than just a possibility unless proved otherwise.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but it seems to be that you're describing the way religion works. This is also how 'miracle' diets gain popularity, and how certain nutritional supplements become top sellers but then fall into obscurity due to not living up to the hype. Most people don't like to take the time to do a proper investigation to see a certain claim "holds water", because that is hard work and it might reveal information that they'd rather not be aware of. They might prefer to believe the claim is true. It's comforting to them. (I'm sorry, but judging by the content of your posts, YOU are one of those people.) Science as a process is designed precisely to avoid such assumptions and "comfortable" thinking.

With both bible readers and those that prefer evolution they are both having to do the same thing. which is fit the evidence to their framework of belief.

I love how believers know they're thought process is flawed, so instead of trying to correct it, they simply accuse the other side of the same thing. The fact is, you've got it backwards. Scientific theories are formulated AROUND a certain set of FACTS. The more facts a theory can account for, the more successful the theory. If a new theory explains more facts than an old one, the old one is discarded. You, and JWs, START with a belief, and then find facts that can fit into that framework. If a fact doesn't fit, then IT is discarded, instead your so called "theory".

We have a planet that is nearly 70% covered in water so a flood is a reasonable belief in my book.

LOL If we had a planet that was 100% covered in water then it would be reasonable. But BECAUSE our planet is ONLY covered in 70% water makes belief in a world wide flood UNreasonable. Which statement makes more sense, mine or yours? There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE of the kind of geological activity necessary to allow that 70% of water to cover the remaining 30% of land. Also if you saw in my previous post the Egyptian culture existed before during and after the supposed flood. Somehow the pyramids survived all that catostrophic "flood geology".

Reniaa... please read BOTH sides of the argument, instead of the one you like that supports your cherished view. It takes honesty and humility. Give it a try.

93

what is best evidence against noah's flood?......

by oompa in

keep it simple if possible........i like the ice core samples.........thanks, this was not my big issue but i may be able to use it.......oompa.

feel free to direct me to another thread btw...... or maybe i should read the second page of olins thread!.

darkl1ght3r

undercover - "Okay...maybe they got the date wrong. Maybe it was built right after the flood...maybe even a few hundred years after."

I know you were just saying that for the sake of argument but it brings up a good point: They didn't get the date wrong.

The Egyptians lined the pyramids up with 'true north'. Meaning they found the axis of the earth's rotation in the sky (about roughly where the North Star is today, or the point in the sky that doesn't appear to move), this is called the 'celestial pole'. Here's the thing, when you measure the alignment of the pyramids TODAY to the celestial pole, they're all off by a slight angle. This is because the pole drifts, meaning that the axis of the earths rotation doesn't always point to the same spot. The amount of the drift is a known and measured phenomonon. When the amount and speed of drift is compared to the angle that the pyramids are alighned to, the earliest can be dated to as far back as 4500 years ago.

Measuring the difference of angle between the pyramids matches the reigns of the kings buried in them. Meaning, as the celestial pole drifted, so did the angle that the Egyptians aligned the pyramid to. The fact that the angle drift correlates so precisely with the list of Kings and the lengths of their reigns means there is no mistake about the dates of the pyramids. There is a margin of error by a couple hundred years, but still it means the Egyptian culture existed before, during, and after Noah's Flood.

For anyone who cares, here's the score so far:

Science: 4,455,980,478,125,047

Bible: 0

65

Unloaded on the husband of my wife's study sister last night, how much damage did I do to myself??

by insearchoftruth in

well had a really good weekend away from home, but i guess i knew that the respite from the wts would end.

tuesdays are the day my wife has her personal bible study with the sister and she has also had the husband come over on tuesday afternoons so the son can have the pleasure of a bible study (which he loathes, he is a high school junior and has no interest in this stuff).

i get home from work late, after a fairly long day and the guy is still there.

darkl1ght3r

LOL Good job ISOT. You know his religion better than he does! He was probably thinking it would go like a typical DC demonstration. "Now, let's look on brothers as our Elder here answers this obstinate husbands questions by 'handeling the word of truth aright." He thought you were gonna ask, you know: What happens to the soul when we die? Isn't Jesus God? Will this world survive? What is God's name? Look! A body of water! What prevents me from getting baptized? ... No! Wait!!! You're not following the script! I don't know what to do!!!

Good job making the cult recruiter squirm. The only damamge done was to his ego and his confidence on the org.