in my quest to help jws wake up i came up with this (at least i think i came up with it myself, can't be sure).. i was hoping someone could help me refine it to be as easy as possible to understand and as hard as possible to weasel out of by some semantics.. just to be clear, i'm an atheist.
this is written for the context of jw beliefs.. .
premise 1: even if a position is true, it is possible for an argument in favour of it to be a bad argument, e.g.
villagegirl I will assume you're responding to me.
What is a 'really advanced' PHD. Is it better than a standard one?
Where did I claim that god and evolution are mutually exclusive? In fact, that is what I'm arguing against.
To which 'simplistic terms' are you referring?
in my quest to help jws wake up i came up with this (at least i think i came up with it myself, can't be sure).. i was hoping someone could help me refine it to be as easy as possible to understand and as hard as possible to weasel out of by some semantics.. just to be clear, i'm an atheist.
this is written for the context of jw beliefs.. .
premise 1: even if a position is true, it is possible for an argument in favour of it to be a bad argument, e.g.
A few of you seem to have misunderstood my post. I'm not saying that this proves evolution or disproves god.
I'm just saying that " Using complexity to argue against evolution is a bad argument".
steve2: Interesting points. Thanks. Could you recommend any particular book or websites?
jgnat: I think you're referring to the Australian Marsupials. A very good case for evolution and against Noah's ark. The age and size of the universe isn't a problem for the JW story (after they embellish the bible a bit). Do you have any other suggestions?
in my quest to help jws wake up i came up with this (at least i think i came up with it myself, can't be sure).. i was hoping someone could help me refine it to be as easy as possible to understand and as hard as possible to weasel out of by some semantics.. just to be clear, i'm an atheist.
this is written for the context of jw beliefs.. .
premise 1: even if a position is true, it is possible for an argument in favour of it to be a bad argument, e.g.
Premise 1: God created the universe, the earth and the laws of physics, chemistry & biology.
Premise 2: Even if a claim is factual , it is possible for an argument in favour of it to be a bad argument, e.g. I know it’s raining because my wife’s hair is wet (It actually is raining but her hair is wet from the bath she took).
Premise 3: A small collection of cells (complex) becomes a human being (much more complex) in 9 months by natural forces of chemistry.
Premise 4: Whether he did so or not, God certainly has the ability to create a system in which animals can evolve into other species.
Conclusion: Using complexity to argue against evolution is a bad argument.
Better?
in my quest to help jws wake up i came up with this (at least i think i came up with it myself, can't be sure).. i was hoping someone could help me refine it to be as easy as possible to understand and as hard as possible to weasel out of by some semantics.. just to be clear, i'm an atheist.
this is written for the context of jw beliefs.. .
premise 1: even if a position is true, it is possible for an argument in favour of it to be a bad argument, e.g.
Alternate Premise 2: God created a system in which a small collection of cells (complex) becomes a human being (much more complex) in only 9 months.
in my quest to help jws wake up i came up with this (at least i think i came up with it myself, can't be sure).. i was hoping someone could help me refine it to be as easy as possible to understand and as hard as possible to weasel out of by some semantics.. just to be clear, i'm an atheist.
this is written for the context of jw beliefs.. .
premise 1: even if a position is true, it is possible for an argument in favour of it to be a bad argument, e.g.
In my quest to help JWs wake up I came up with this (at least I think I came up with it myself, can't be sure).
I was hoping someone could help me refine it to be as easy as possible to understand and as hard as possible to weasel out of by some semantics.
Just to be clear, I'm an atheist. This is written for the context of JW beliefs.
Premise 1: Even if a position is true, it is possible for an argument in favour of it to be a bad argument, e.g. I know it’s raining because my wife’s hair is wet (It actually is raining but her hair is wet from the bath she took).
Premise 2: God created a system in which a small collection of cells becomes a human being in 9 months.
Premise 3: Whether he did so or not, God certainly has the ability to create a system in which animals can evolve into other species.
Conclusion: Using complexity to argue against evolution is a bad argument.
i'm going to ask a jw if they are discouraged from reading books outside of their watchtower publications.
when he says "no" i want to counter the claim by showing the numerous examples i've seen in their literature of exactly that.
trouble is i don't know where they are.
Oh, and also some about how they have to be prepared to defend their faith against challengers (as opposed to walking away, which is what I mostly see).
i'm going to ask a jw if they are discouraged from reading books outside of their watchtower publications.
when he says "no" i want to counter the claim by showing the numerous examples i've seen in their literature of exactly that.
trouble is i don't know where they are.
I'm going to ask a JW if they are discouraged from reading books outside of their watchtower publications. When he says "no" I want to counter the claim by showing the numerous examples I've seen in their literature of exactly that. Trouble is I don't know where they are. Could someone point me to them please? Here's the only one I have. In the interest of acedemic honesty (unlike JWs) I have to point out that I haven't *yet* checked the source.
Watchtower July 2011
“We must refuse to read the literature of false teachers, watch TV programs that feature them, examine their Web sites, or add our comments to their blogs. Why do we take such a firm stand? Because of love. We love “the God of truth,” so we are not interested in twisted teachings that contradict his Word of truth."
Need more. Many thanks.
i've got an audience with a believing jw.
yes, i know he's not really listening.
i see all the usual signs of cognitive dissonance.
Thank you everyone for your comments.
jgnat - "Why talk to the cultist? Much more interesting to talk to the natural person within. What is it about this person that makes him/her unique?"
He is a work colleague, which means I have a rare opportunity to talk directly to a believing JW about his beliefs. My motivation is just compassion, as I think JWs are victims of mind control. He's young enough that if he got out soon he could still live a full life.
designs
What is the "FDS fiasco"
i've got an audience with a believing jw.
yes, i know he's not really listening.
i see all the usual signs of cognitive dissonance.
Thank you everyone for your comments.
jgnat - "Why talk to the cultist? Much more interesting to talk to the natural person within. What is it about this person that makes him/her unique?"
He is a work colleague, which means I have a rare opportunity to talk directly to a believing JW about his beliefs. My motivation is just compassion, as I think JWs are victims of mind control. He's young enough that if he got out soon he could still live a full life.
designs
What is the "FDS fiasco"
i've got an audience with a believing jw.
yes, i know he's not really listening.
i see all the usual signs of cognitive dissonance.
I've got an audience with a believing JW. Yes, I know he's not really listening. I see all the usual signs of cognitive dissonance. But I have to try.
So I put forward some pretty blatant quotemines and, well, you know how it goes.
Someone please give me something undeniable that I can show him. There must be something.
