Wow, that's very local for me; she has sons living in the same town as me.
NeonMadman
JoinedPosts by NeonMadman
-
5
Martha Liverance, mother of Gilead instructor Wallace Liverance, dead at age 85
by VM44 inmartha liverance, 85. wednesday, november 23, 2011. the gazette (hawthorne edition).
hawthorne martha liverance, 85, died nov. 2.. .
she was a 45-year resident of ridgewood and a long-time member of the wyckoff congregation of jehovah's witnesses.. .
-
-
-
-
-
NeonMadman
It sounds as if you are saying that, because there are many wrong religions, it is not possible that any of them are true. Otherwise, what is the significance of the fact that most people are born into religions that are not true? I would agree that the matter of which religion is correct deserves serious investigation. Those who investigate seriously should be able to determine what is true and what is not (though I acknowledge that the issue is a complex one). But the argument presented in this thread, that of geography determining religious belief, and that fact somehow contra-indicating the truth of all religions, seems to be along the lines of the well-known "one less god" argument. The fact that many beliefs are false does not mean that one belief is not true. Atheists happen to believe that atheism, among all the belief systems of the world, is the correct one. Theists would disagree. But the fact that atheism (or, by extension, any form of theism) is one belief system among many certainly cannot be used to argue that it is therefore necessarily false. If there is one God, then the fact that many people believe in gods that do not exist is hardly an argument against the existence of the one who does, any more than the infinite number of potential wrong answers to the question of what 2+2 equals means that there is no correct answer. The geography argument simply presents a logical fallacy, as does the "one less god" argument. Neither speaks to the actual question of the existence of a true God.
-
-
-
NeonMadman
Unless critical thinking is first and foremost, Unless a "belief system" has built-in corrective measures as far as testing its own truthfulness, then is would be correct to assume it is wrong.
edit: of course these corrective measures would be biase to support the "belief system's" viewpoint.
I'm not sure how that relates to the discussion at hand, that of beliefs being determined by geography. My point was that this sort of argument (that of beliefs being determined by geography, as advanced in the graphic in the original post in this thread) is often raised against theists, but it really proves nothing. How we acquired a belief in no way relates to whether the belief is true or not. The same could be said of atheists and agnostics in this regard as of theists.
One might also wonder what "corrective measures" are in place to test the presupposition of materialistic naturalism that forms the basis of the atheist's belief, and whether such corrective measures (if they exist) might be biased in favor of that belief system's viewpoint. Ultimately, all belief systems - including atheism - are based on presuppositions that cannot be absolutely proven.
-
6
Will there be a SECOND Armageddon in the year 2914?
by Alfred inok... i know the answer... absolutely not..... but where does the watchtower get this idea that satan will be released in the year 2914 (1914 + 1,000) to test the faith of jws who have been cleaning up the planet for a thousand years?
which bible texts have they taken out of context to arrive at this bizarre and exclusive jw teaching?.
also, what are they saying will happen to the those who fail this "final test"?
-
-
NeonMadman
I don't believe I've ever seen it in a WT pub where they specified that 2914 would be when Satan would be released. In fact, their teachings would seem to argue against that date. The 1000 years begin at Armageddon, not in 1914. Satan is released at the end of the 1000 years. Since Armageddon has not yet occurred, the 1000 years have not begun, therefore, could not end in 2914. Do you have a citation from a publication where it mentions this date?
-
11
Did you / do you have KH Parking Lot Security Duty?
by Alfred injust wondering if this is only a regional thing.... i've been in two kingdom halls in the 90's where the parking was basically shared or public... so every 15 minutes, baptized publishers (who were not irregular or inactive) were rotated and had to stand outside in all kinds of weather just to watch everyone's vehicles.
when the weather was nice, it was a good opportunity stretch out to take a break from the borefest.
but i always thought that this was so contrary to their belief of "putting kingdom interests first"... i even approached an elder one time about this and asked: "why are we putting material things ahead of listening to the public talk?
-
-
NeonMadman
I think we only had it at the Memorial, but I lived in a pretty low-crime area. Except for higher crime areas, where it may have been necessary, it wasn't a big thing that I was aware of. However, I wouldn't be surprised if they had instituted it even in low-crime areas to prevent apostates from coming in and pamphleting cars during the meeting.
-
-
-
NeonMadman
And if you were born in certain secular areas of Europe, you'd probably be atheist or agnostic.
None of which says anything about the truth or falsity of the given belief systems. The argument presented in this graphic is often used against anyone who believes that their particular belief system is true, but it really is no argument. The prevalence of belief or unbelief in certain geographical areas is unrelated to the validity of those beliefs. Citing the cultural, emotional or psychological reasons why someone believes only tells you something about that person, not about the truth value of his or her belief system. As an argument, this could actually be seen as a form of the genetic fallacy, since it seems to imply that belief systems are wrong because of how they were acquired, and not because of their merits as truth claims.
As C.S Lewis wrote,
" Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant — but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error."
In the same essay, Lewis also wrote,
You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — "Oh you say that because you are a man ." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.
-
8
Power Supplier Fired Jehovahs Witness For Wanting One Day Off to Attend Religious Convention
by Bangalore inpower supplier fired jehovah's witness for wanting one day off to attend religious convention.. http://thejobmouse.com/2012/01/27/power-supplier-fired-jehovah%e2%80%99s-witness-for-wanting-one-day-off-to-attend-religious-conven.
bangalore.
.
-
-
NeonMadman
I had a job where I used to get hassled that way. Frankly, as much as I think it's a bad idea to be a JW and to go to those conventions, I'm on the side of the JW woman on this issue, at least in principle. At one job in particular, I always got hassled when I requested a day off for the convention, yet other guys who wanted a day off to go to the beach or run personal errands had no problem at all. Fortunately, I always (grudgingly) was allowed the day in the end, but I could probably still have made a case for religious discrimination. This woman has the right to believe what she wishes, no matter how wrong it is, and she should be given the same freedom to practice her beliefs that other employees have. If other employees are allowed days off for personal reasons (and I'm sure they are - what company today doesn't make at least some PTO days available?), then she should be too.
What actually crossed my mind when I read this story, though, was that she may have been a problem employee in other ways, and the company just used this issue as an excuse to get rid of her. Probably a bad management decision, if that's what it was, since they are likely to lose the inevitable lawsuit.
-
17
Star Trek - the Borg
by finally awake init just occurred to me that we use the term "borg" when talking about the organization.
it's a cute play on words, but i wonder if the writers of star trek who came up with the idea of the borg had some experience or connection with witnesses.
.
-
-
NeonMadman
Actually, I think it was ex-JWs who co-opted the expression from Star Trek, then picked up on the fact that "Borg" makes a decent contraction of "Brooklyn Organization." Maybe in a few years we'll have to talk about the "Worg" instead?
-
7
Looking for ex-JW in Upstate NY
by Anony Mous inanyone living in the upstate ny area?
i am looking for expert witnesses (ex-jw) to collaborate my story regarding jw doctrine.
i will pay for time lost, travel etc.
-
-
NeonMadman
That's a pretty good hike for me, but it's not outside the realm of possibility. What exactly are you looking for someone to do?
-
7
Looking for ex-JW in Upstate NY
by Anony Mous inanyone living in the upstate ny area?
i am looking for expert witnesses (ex-jw) to collaborate my story regarding jw doctrine.
i will pay for time lost, travel etc.
-
-
NeonMadman
How far upstate are you? I live in northern NJ, right next to the NY state border.