Posts by cognisonance

70

Reaching Loved Ones Stuck in a Cult: An Idea for Discussion

by 00DAD in

you may have heard the expression: "the map is not the territory.

" have you ever thought about how this idea may help you reach your loved ones stuck in a cult?

the phrase has been attributed to polish-american scientist and philosopher alfred korzybski.

cognisonance

For movies, The Island is good at highlighting cognitive dissonance and beliving something that isn't true. The Shunning is also really good for showing how unloving shunning is. The Matrix and Shawshank Redemption (the later for dealing with the effects of institutionalization) are good too, but not all JWs would be willing to watch those due to the rating.

159

Believers, do you believe in evolution?

by everchangingworld in

after leaving, i still couldn't wrap my head around evolution (after the years of seing "intelligent design" in everything around me).. there's a series of videos that give a good intro to evolution and critical thinking.

they've probably been posted here before, but, for any new members, these are worth watching.. evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdddbyilel0.

critical thinking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6olpl5p0fmg.

cognisonance

NewChapter, I think your question is valid and has not been answered as well.

Also, I think he was meaning 1950 - 1859 = 91 (~100) years. not 2012-1950. Not that it matters much.

31

WT: World War I started in October 1914 (not July 1914)

by Calebs Airplane in

according to the wt, these are the actual sequence of events that led to the start of world war i:.

1) the gentile times ended on october 1/2, 1914.

2) jesus took the throne immediately thereafter.. 3) one of jesus' first tasks as the newly enthroned king was to engage in a heavenly war against satan and his demons.. 4) having won the war against satan and his demons, jesus expelled satan and his demons from the heavenly realm giving them only terrestial access.. 5) since satan is a sore loser, he became extremely bitter and decided to wreak havoc upon all the earth.. 6) filled with anger, satan then provoked the nations of the earth into a 4 year bloody battle known today as world war i. so there you have it... wwi started sometime in october of 1914 (not july 1914 as history books would have you believe).

cognisonance

I always wondered this question too (timing of WW1 with 1914 doctrine) and saw the enigma even when I thought the JWs were the true religion. Of course the thought stopping programming then kicked in...

But I remember, after I started my path to not believing the religion, hear a brother say that the one thing that brought him into the truth was his interest in history. When he leaned that WW1 correlated with 1914, he just had to accept this was the "truth." Odd statement indeed when history doesn't show there is a correlation with Oct, 1914 and WWI.

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/>