Posts by cognisonance

36

New Pattern regarding Science in the Awake

by konceptual99 in

reading the first couple of awakes for 2013 i think there is a pattern developing.. they have the regular "could it have happened by chance" article on something amazing in nature but they are also interviewing a scientist who is also a witness.

this is a pretty interesting tack on a number of levels.. firstly it is sending out the implicit message that "look, this educated person accepts creation, the flood and every other account that is at odds with generally accepted science, so that should give you confidence that you are right as well".

secondly, as a magazine designed for public comsumption is suggests to non-witnesses that there are many well educated people who accept the bible.

cognisonance

Dave Perez: You wouldn't ask a biologist their opinion on a circuit board: why would you ask an electronic engineer for their opinion on biology?It's intellectually dishonest for WT to offer his "educated opinion" as evidence on any topic outside of capacitors and robotics... It's intellectually dishonest for WT to offer his "educated opinion" as evidence on any topic outside of capacitors and robotics.

It can only be "intellectually dishonest" if the writer(s), and more importantly the GB who signs off on the article, are aware that they are making at least one of the following logical fallalcies involved with using this computer scientist to debunk evolution (they may just be unaware of the sloppy logic being used):

Appeal to authority
Appeal to accomplishment (or sucess)
Cherry Picking (specifically fallacy of exclusion)
and if the purpose (it may not be) is to print articles like this showing that many educated people accept creation, Spotlight Fallacy

The posting about František Vyskocil: In my school years, I believed that the theory of evolution explained life’s diversity... My doubts about evolution began when I was studying synapses. I was deeply impressed by the amazing complexity of these supposedly simple connections between nerve cells. ‘How,’ I wondered, ‘could synapses and the genetic programs underlying them be products of mere blind chance?’

I'm having a hard time understanding how a person who held a degree in biology and accepted evolution, could then go on to ask the question "how could this happen by blind chance?" For me, studying evolution showed that such a question is a strawman fallacy. I cannot enunciate my thoughts here better than how Jerry Coyne does in his book Why Evolution Is True (p. 129):

This brings up what is surely the most widespread misunderstanding about Darwinism: the idea that, in evolution, "everthing happens by chance"... This common claim is flatly wrong. No evolutionist - and certainly not Darwin - ever argued that natural selection is based on chance. Quite the opposite. Could a completely random process alone make the hammering wood-pecker...? Of course not. If suddenly evolution was forced to depend on random mutations alone, species would quickly degenerate and go extinct. Chance alone cannot explain the marvelous fit between indiiduals and their environment... True the raw materials for evolution - the variations between individuals - are produced by chance mutations. These mutations occur willy-nilly, regardless of whether they are good or bad for the individual. But it is the filtering of that variation by natural selection that produces adaptations, and natural selection is manifestly not random. (Italics his)

He then quotes Richard Dawkin's concise definition of his explainaiton about natural selection: "the non-random survival of random variants."

So I bring this all up to ask this question. How could someone who accepted evolution happened, and also acknowledged that natural section best explains how it happened, later reject it, especially by using strawman logic (i.e. equating mutations and natural selection to "just chance" as he later says)?

I want to be careful to not to use the No True Scottsman Fallacy myself in answering this question (i.e. just resorting to the answer that he/she must not have "truly" accepted/understood evolution).

56

Rutherford's love letter to Hitler

by irondork in

has anyone ever thought to send a copy of rutherford's letter to hitler & declaration of facts to the holocaust museum in washington, d.c.?

they have and entire section dedicated to the jehovah's witness in that museum.

i would hate for tourists to visit the museum and not get the whole story.. i would also assume there are jw displays at other holocaust museums around the world.

cognisonance

Perhaps you didn't copy 'n paste. I sorry if I suggested something that wasn't true. So can I try again?

You seem to be saying each GB and bethel heavy gets his own car (or multiple concurrenlty) that total $80-100k in value and gets swapped out every 2 years.

I have two questions. If this claim is true then

Why would a GB member need more than one car? Maybe one for the wife? Okay 2 LaCrosses equals ~60K (not 80-100).
Why would they own new cars and keep them just for 2 years. Perhaps they are leasing them instead, which would be cheaper (though not as cheap as owning them and maintaining them for say 10 years)

If this is true, then great, I'm be happy to know these things, but I want to make sure that it's true. My red flags start being raised for me when I come across information that seems exaggerated, unsubstantiated, or baseless. That doesn't mean the information is such, just that I want more details and facts if possible.

56

Rutherford's love letter to Hitler

by irondork in

has anyone ever thought to send a copy of rutherford's letter to hitler & declaration of facts to the holocaust museum in washington, d.c.?

they have and entire section dedicated to the jehovah's witness in that museum.

i would hate for tourists to visit the museum and not get the whole story.. i would also assume there are jw displays at other holocaust museums around the world.

cognisonance

Okay I see you are talking about the GB (and other "bethel heavies"). It does look like you just copy 'n pasted from another site (thus the spanish). And it isn't exactly easy to follow what you are saying as a result.

Do you mean that a $80,000+ car is given to each GB member? Or do you mean they are given multiple cars concurrently that value over $80 total? If the latter it would take almost 3 LaCrosse cars to get over 80K. You talk about a "lot" of cars available for the GB and bethel heavies to use. How do you get to the 80K figure?

I admit I may not have the facts here, maybe you know something I don't. But this claim just seems exaggerated.

56

Rutherford's love letter to Hitler

by irondork in

has anyone ever thought to send a copy of rutherford's letter to hitler & declaration of facts to the holocaust museum in washington, d.c.?

they have and entire section dedicated to the jehovah's witness in that museum.

i would hate for tourists to visit the museum and not get the whole story.. i would also assume there are jw displays at other holocaust museums around the world.

cognisonance

Governing body members, own vehicles, high value, more than $ 80,000 each, that Bethelites cleaned, then they talk about, "the showy display of one's livelihood"

According to Bethelites who served at Bethel.. Brown también ha sido dado Lexus

there are regal Buick LaCrosses for Governing Body members.....

Is this a copy 'n paste job? What's up with the spanish about " Brown has also been given a Lexus." Brown who? Don't think any GB member has a last name of Brown.

$80,000 cars? Even most lexuses don't cost that much. you mention Buick LaCrosse and Regal? MSRP is around 30K (or less) for these, not $80. I believe these are the same cars COs and DOs are given.

I see the point that the GB gets nice treatment, and if they were to live their lifestyle (appartment, car, food, travel, etc) and work a secular job it would require more than the average household income in the US (or likely even in the area they live). But what you post just seems to be exaggeration. This does nothing to help with the facts. Please don't post stuff that isn't true.

Also, what is wrong with the pic of Anthony Morris with 2 rings, 1 watch, and a tie pin? Really, that is a showy display of one's means to life?

158

Circuit Accounts Servants Confesses how the SCAM WORKS!!

by JT in

jw
friends

yes, i too have wondered how an assembly that is held in a fully paid for assembly hall, with no food service, could possibly have $10,000 in expenses.

i suppose the bethel speakers have transportation expenses - maybe $1000 or so.

as for rent on the assembly hall, well you have already paid for it once, why pay again?

cognisonance

I would love to see the paper trail evidence (instead of anecdotal evidence). I worked on the accounts for the KH and RBC builds. I know everything is accounted for to the penny with these things. Therefore there has to be forms where the "accounting" is done (which would show the mandatory amount sent to the WTS, right?).

Does anyone have the forms that are used (more current, the better). Also such forms are accompanied by detailed instructions. Wouldn't this be the same for Assembly forms? Please send me a PM if you'd rather not publicize them.

398

Jwfacts, Why Do You Equate Miracles With Magic?

by Recovery in

i have a question for the author of the website jwfacts.

as i was reading the sparlock article, i couldn't help but notice something seriously wrong:.

"the bible abounds in vivid fantasy, such as its many celestial descriptions, or the portrayal of warring kingdoms with imaginary beasts.. the sparlock message is confusing, as much for an adult as for a child, as the bible shows that god's followers practice magic, even if they are usually referred to as miracles.

cognisonance

Ad Hominem attacks (whether about Recovery, or him using WTS material in response) is not a good way to respond to his position he believes in. If it seems there is no need to keep talking, and agree to disagree, that is one thing. But attacking him is uncalled for (as well as him attacking others). Name calling, making fun, insulting, etc. All of that has nothing to do with critical thinking and being rational, reasonable, and logical. I understand it can be hard to keep emotions at bay (I'm not always rational, reasonable, and logical myself). But please, enough with the name calling and insults. It does not add anything to the discussion.

A miracle is never performed by Satan because a miracle is something done by God, by God's holy spirit. That is why Jesus made the clear distinction between the two. They are not interchangeable. They are not synonyms. As false analogy is defined: " A false analogy is where an invalid conclusion is drawn from a comparison between two apparently similar situations, but different in the manner INVOKED."

Recovery, did you even read what I wrote earlier in this thread about false analogies (which can also include weak analogies). Please go back and re-read, as the definition you give is not the only way an analogy can be fallacious. The one you point to, " A false analogy is an argument based upon an assumed similarity between two things, people, or situations when in fact the two things being compared are not similar in the manner invoked" seems to come from the site T he Skeptic Guide to the Universe (perhaps from some othersite as you didn't mention your references). Here is what it says in full (including the part you are quoting in highlight):

False Analogy
Analogies are very useful as they allow us to draw lessons from the familiar and apply them to the unfamiliar. Life is like a box of chocolate – you never know what you’re going to get.

A false analogy is an argument based upon an assumed similarity between two things, people, or situations when in fact the two things being compared are not similar in the manner invoked. Saying that the probability of a complex organism evolving by chance is the same as a tornado ripping through a junkyard and created a 747 by chance is a false analogy. Evolution, in fact, does not work by chance but is the non-random accumulation of favorable changes.

Creationists also make the analogy between life and your home, invoking the notion of thermodynamics or entropy. Over time your home will become messy, and things will start to break down. The house does not spontaneously become more clean or in better repair.

The false analogy here is that a home is an inanimate collection of objects. Whereas life uses energy to grow and reproduce – the addition of energy to the system of life allows for the local reduction in entropy – for evolution to happen.

Another way in which false analogies are invoked is to make an analogy between two things that are in fact analogous in many ways – just not the specific way being invoked in the argument. Just because two things are analogous in some ways does not mean they are analogous in every way. 1

One of the examples of a bona fide false analogy I've underlined above. Evolution does not work by chance. That is a common misconception. So the premise of the analogy is already flawed (as it's based on a misconception). This is also a very weak analogy as well, but foremost a false one to begin with.

When it comes to miracle vs. magic analogy, by saying it is a false analogy, you are primarily asserting that the premise of the comparision, as used by jwfacts, is flawed. That premise you view as flawed is that miracles from the god of the bible are not any different in practice than the magic from Satan (or other gods). You then object and say there is a difference, otherwise they wouldn't have different names you reason. You say the bible makes a distinction itself between the two. You say the difference is in the source of the supernatural event.

I agree that if one believes magic and miracles actually are real (a premise you must have to make the false analogy claim), there could be a distinction here with a difference. What others are tryng to point out though is if one does not believe them to be real (does not agree with your starting premise), then there is a distinction, but only with words and point of view (i.e. source), that this distinction has no practical difference. Hence, there is no false analogy fallacy at play. So to really get anywhere with whether or not there is a false analogy, one has to first establish if the starting premise is even true (did miracles and magic actually happen, or was it just mans way of explaining the unexplainable in a time when people were overwhelmed with ignorance about the world in which they lived).

Thus, if one accepts the premise that magic and miracles can't/didn't happen, we have no false analogy, but we can then consider if we have a weak analogy as I mentioned earlier. Please go back and read that post if you want to see if the weak analogy fallacy applies here.

I'd also like to add, that even if a person is making a weak analogy, it is possible that it is not neccessarily fallacious. In the other post in this thread, I quoted form Fallacy Files. It makes this point:

Some arguments from analogy are based on analogies that are so weak that the argument is too weak for the purpose to which it is put. How strong an argument needs to be depends upon the context in which it occurs, and the use that it is intended to serve. Thus, in the absence of other evidence, and as a guide to further research, even a very weak analogical argument may be strong enough. Therefore, while the strength of an argument from analogy depends upon the strength of the analogy in its premisses, it is not solely determined by that strength. 2

I agree it is easy to find fault with an analogy and claim it is weak or false. Thus the context in which it is used, and other evidence or premisses it is based on (or perhaps contrary evidence), are important to consider when making such claims.

1 "Top 20 Logical Fallacies." The Skeptic Guide to the Universe. 25 Sept. 2012 <http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx>.

2 Curtis, Gary. "Weak Analogy." Fallacy Files. 25 Setp. 2012. <http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html>.

398

Jwfacts, Why Do You Equate Miracles With Magic?

by Recovery in

i have a question for the author of the website jwfacts.

as i was reading the sparlock article, i couldn't help but notice something seriously wrong:.

"the bible abounds in vivid fantasy, such as its many celestial descriptions, or the portrayal of warring kingdoms with imaginary beasts.. the sparlock message is confusing, as much for an adult as for a child, as the bible shows that god's followers practice magic, even if they are usually referred to as miracles.

cognisonance

jwfacts, I agree with you that there is no practical difference between magic and miracles, especially from the viewpoint of one that does not believe in magic and miracles.

However, you say:

The Bible does not say that these things [miracles, gifts, etc] would be done away with "after the restraint of the Apostles", that is what the Watchtower says. The Bible shows that the gifts would not be done away with until “that which is complete arrives” and we see “face to face”, which is a reference to going to heaven.

I don't think that is strictly a Watchtower thought. The ESV Study Bible Online 1 comments:

Interpreters differ over the time when Paul expects prophecies to pass away and tongues to cease (along with other gifts represented by these examples). The “cessationist” view is that miraculous gifts such as prophecy, healing, tongues, interpretation, and miracles were given to authenticate the apostles and their writings in the early years of the church, but those gifts “ceased” once the entire NT was written and the apostles died (c. a.d. 100). Others hold that Paul expected these gifts to continue until Christ returns, which will be the time when “the perfect” (v. 10) ways of speaking and knowing in the age to come replace the “in part” (v. 9) gifts of this age. Support for the second position is found in v. 12, which indicates that “then” (the time when these gifts will cease) is the time of Christ’s return.

So this isn't strictly a JW explaination. Also the ESV notes don't even say anything about "going to heaven," though I am not implying they are the only authority here, or are making an exhustive list of interpreter views. The view you express may be another scholarly interpretation for all I know.

1 "Study Bible Notes - 1 Corithians 13:8." ESV Study Bible Online . 25 Sept. 2012 <http://www.esvbible.org/search/1+Corinthians+13%3A8-13/>

398

Jwfacts, Why Do You Equate Miracles With Magic?

by Recovery in

i have a question for the author of the website jwfacts.

as i was reading the sparlock article, i couldn't help but notice something seriously wrong:.

"the bible abounds in vivid fantasy, such as its many celestial descriptions, or the portrayal of warring kingdoms with imaginary beasts.. the sparlock message is confusing, as much for an adult as for a child, as the bible shows that god's followers practice magic, even if they are usually referred to as miracles.

cognisonance

Recovery, I am happy to hear you are interested in logic fallacies (I am learning myself). I didn't read all of this thread so I appologize if this has already been mentioned, but you start out with the assertion that JwFacts is making a false analogy. A false analogy (also called a weak analogy) takes the following form:

A is like B.
B has property P.
Therefore, A has property P.
(Where the analogy between A and B is weak.) 1

The key point here is that the analogy between A and B has to be sufficently weak for it to be fallacious. All analogies, even the strongest ones, aren't perfect and do break down at some point (i.e. become weak). For example here is one in the bible (the strength or weakness of this analogy is more in how it is used):

"For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God" (ESV, Hebrews 3:4)

Sometimes this analogy is used with regards to the earth, to support the view it was created by God. There are many similarities. A house provides us shelter and safety (from storms and cold), so does the earth (from solar storms and the cold of space). We enjoy a clean house; so do we enjoy a clean earth. There any many more. But even this analogy has weak points (that don't automatically make it fallacious per se). For example, the earth rotates around an axis and moves through space around the sun. A typical house is stationary and does not rotate and move. So this is one area where the analogy breaks down. (I want to point out that all human-made houses are indeed made by humans (what of caves used as a home, though?), but that doesn't neccessarily mean that the earth was created by a builder too. Simply using an analogy does not make it true. There needs to be more to one's argument here than just this.)

Now if we use this "every house is built by someone" analogy and apply it to "but the builder of life is God." Well what are the similarities here? Both have the appearance of design. Okay, in some ways life also has the appearance of an intelligent designer. Are there any other similarities? I can't think of any others. The main one is a house has the appearance of design, so does life. What of the differences? Is a living thing our home (it might be to those that believe in the soul-body speration, but not for JWs)? Is a house alive? Does a house have offspring? It's quite easy to show that this analogy is weak.

To stay on topic, with the magic vs. miracle question, true there is a difference, I will admit that, just as there are differences in all analogies. But does it matter, is the analogy so weak that it doesn't make sense to compare the two? Are the similarities so weak, and any differences strong? Consider this while I comment on what you said earlier:

No, the only thing that made anyone look stupid is attempting to use magic and miracles interchangeably when Jehovah expressly condemned one and endorsed the other. Even a thesarus does not use the two words interchangeably as synonyms but makes a clear distinction between the two.

In the JW worldview (as well as the respective bible writer's world view) Magic ≠ Miracles. However, this line of thinking is fallacious becuase it is a Distinction without a Difference. I would argue that the magic vs. miracles have strong similarities and weak differences. Not the other way around. A Distinction without a Difference fallacy is stated as follows:

The assertion that a position is different from another position based on the language, when in fact, both positions are exactly the same -- at least in practice or practical terms. 2

In this case you argue that magic ≠ miracles becuase one is of the "true God" and all other forms are from "false gods," via Satan (or via Satan and the demons directly).

But in practice or in practical terms there is no difference. The only difference is how people view the two, but that is point of view, not a practical difference. So ofcourse JWs and bible writers would not see the supernatural things Moses, Araon, etc did as magic (to them the difference is a strong one, not weak). However, a person that does not believe in the bible, like an athiest, would not see any difference between what Moses and Araon did and the magic practicing priests of Egypt (as there is no practical difference to them between Moses' God and those of Pharoah's, as they don't believe in god(s) anyway). In practice the account was a pissing match between Moses' God and Pharoah' God(s). One of Pharoah's "magic" practicing priests did x, one of Moses' "miricale" practicing priests did x as well, etc.

1 Curtis, Gary. "Weak Analogy." Fallacy Files. 25 Setp. 2012. <http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html>.

2 Bennet, Bo. "Distinction without a Difference." Logically Fallacious. 25 Setp. 2012. <http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/79-distinction-without-a-difference>.

4

Were Adam and Eve created with immune systems?

by Knowsnothing in

hey!

yeah you, apologists.

god created adam and eve perfect, right?

cognisonance

I think a JW would respond: "Animals never were intended to live forever, and could get sick. Therefore, germs always existed, so perfect humans thus had perfect immune systems to prevent sickness and death."

I don't buy this argument, but I think many might make it.

28

Experience with Former Elder regarding contributions at Conventions

by Momma-Tossed-Me in

jw
friends

i recently had the opportunity to visit with a former elder who has successfully faded without getting df'd, but he is completely aware of the sham.

he was the main accounts guy for the conventions in his circuit.

he related a very telling story to me the other day that i thought i would share with you.

cognisonance

This is the first I've heard of this. I'm shocked.

So what about all the new assembly halls that are being built, you know the ones where the local JWs are suppose to raise their own funds to pay for the expenses of building the hall, are you telling me that when the assemblies start being held that the "costs in association with this assembly" will not be just the utilities and maintenance (since the hall is supposed to be paid off), but a huge part would be essentially a donation to the branch?

Does anyone have proof of this claim? I'd love to see it (rather than just hersay).