Posts by cognisonance

28

You CAN continue associating with wordly/disfellowshipped family members AND get a higher education

by Anony Mous in

quotes:.

-- therefore, explain that a parent's decision an a child's associates would not be based on religion, but on the young one's conduct ... it will probably help if you acknowledge that this does not mean that all other youths whom your children are around in the neighborhood or at school are no good.

some of them may be pleasant and decent, as some of your neighbors, relatives, and workmates are.

cognisonance

Well, you didn't have to choose between your family and your religious beliefs because you don't have any religious beliefs.

Hmm...

You're right. It's not like I chose to become an athiest. I'm an athiest because I simply lack belief. Therefore, I had nothing to choose between. So when it comes to me, these words aren't lies (of course not all former members are athiests...)

At the risk of moving the goal post... But what about my JW parents and friends?

Here something just "happened" to me. I gained education about scientific matters that led me to lack belief in any metaphysical concepts. No choice involved to come to that position. My parents on the other had, they do have a choice. They can choice their beliefs (which means to shun me) or they can choose me (which betrays their beliefs).

If no one should have to choose, then why is the WTBTS forcing my parents to choose via persuasively coercive mind control techniques? This quote maybe isn't a lie, but rather a hypocritical statement.

Of course the article's context is talking about changing one's religion (again something I didn't do, I just stopped being religous and stopped being spiritual). My parents also aren't trying to change their relgion. Still, a statement about noone should be forced to choose between family and beliefs should be a concept that applies just as much to my parents situation as it does to someone that is switching religions.

28

You CAN continue associating with wordly/disfellowshipped family members AND get a higher education

by Anony Mous in

quotes:.

-- therefore, explain that a parent's decision an a child's associates would not be based on religion, but on the young one's conduct ... it will probably help if you acknowledge that this does not mean that all other youths whom your children are around in the neighborhood or at school are no good.

some of them may be pleasant and decent, as some of your neighbors, relatives, and workmates are.

cognisonance

These two quotes:

No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family
This is the OTHER side of the "freedom to choose" equation.
The subject of that sentence is the person who feels pressured to worship in a manner that's not heart-felt.
However, the words that aren't stated (but are well-known to be the case, even if unspoken) is that the REST of the family IS equally free to make the choice NOT to associate with the non-believer: they don't have to associate with the one who's questioning the faith (and hence, everyone elses). And even if one of the family members experience some remorse or guilt over shunning the questioning family member, THEY likewise don't have to choose between family or religious beliefs: they ALSO could be shunned as well, if the burden of making that choice is too much for them to bear. The Witnesses will put them out of their misery, and shun them, as well.

And:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/126156/1/JW-Children-Lie-in-Custody-Cases

Are very, very interesting! That referenced tread is very long, but brings up the idea that sometimes we are convinced what we think is being said isn't being said after all since our biases or intuition – which can often be faulty – is at play. This idea is similar to how we preceive optical illusions. I'm taking a class in irrational behavior right now and it brings out that our eyes spent millions of years evolving to see what is really there physically, yet we still can be illusioned. Is it possible that we can be illusioned in our cognitive, concious thinking, something which is more abstract and certainly hasn't had as much time for evolution to tune as effectively as something like vision? Not only is this possibe, but we'd be more likely to be illusioned cognitively, than visually.

At first glance, no one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family certainly sounds like a lie!

But is that a lie? This is related to one of my other posts about why propagandize/appeal to emotion when criticizing JWs/WTBTS, where I challenge if we should be quick to assert (when it comes to statements like this) that the WTBTS lies. I'm not arguing that we can't find examples where they (representatives of the WTBTS) are lying, I’m sure we can, but this specific statement (the one in blue highlight), is it a lie? To define a lie, it is a statement that is intended to deceive or made with knowledge that it is not factual.

I was DF'd over non-doctrinal grounds. I had the opportunity to return to the religion and enjoy association with my family and friends. However, I also did not believe the religion anymore (or any for that matter, I’m now an atheist). Thus I was presented with a choice between my beliefs (i.e. I don't believe the religion, I lack belief in the supernatural) and family (i.e. requiring me to either believe something I don’t – is that possible? - or to act like I believe).

I’d like someone to play devil’s advocate here. Someone please tell me how I was not forced to make that choice? I’m having a hard time not seeing this as a lie. But I also don’t want to be quick and just assert that they are lying when it might be more nuanced than that, in a strictly rhetorical way. In short, I don’t want to jump to conclusions.

23

The resurrection fantasy, the last desperate illusion?

by Slidin Fast in

as people get older they inevitably lose more of their friends and family.

the doctrine that binds them to the truth like superglue is the doctrine of the resurrection.

they ache to see their dead rise.. so ... i die.

cognisonance

This is a very poignant thread. I just realized that those pictures of welcoming back a resurrected loved one at a grave site means that everyone would be standing ontop of the remains of their dead loved one. Imagine, being resurrected and digging up the grave site to see your own dead remains. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

57

Logical Fallacies in WT Publications

by Oubliette in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:documentproperties> <o:revision>0</o:revision> <o:totaltime>0</o:totaltime> <o:pages>1</o:pages> <o:words>858</o:words> <o:characters>4892</o:characters> <o:company>oak park</o:company> <o:lines>40</o:lines> <o:paragraphs>11</o:paragraphs> <o:characterswithspaces>5739</o:characterswithspaces> <o:version>14.0</o:version> </o:documentproperties> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>ja</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> <w:usefelayout /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!

cognisonance

My idea is to catalog the most common and blatant examples of logical fallacies and other rhetorical errors in WT publications, catalog them and then create a number of secularized examples of each. This could be a great tool!

I like that idea. Where would you display this list? Forums are not the best, well forum, becuase posts get stale and fade.

57

Logical Fallacies in WT Publications

by Oubliette in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:documentproperties> <o:revision>0</o:revision> <o:totaltime>0</o:totaltime> <o:pages>1</o:pages> <o:words>858</o:words> <o:characters>4892</o:characters> <o:company>oak park</o:company> <o:lines>40</o:lines> <o:paragraphs>11</o:paragraphs> <o:characterswithspaces>5739</o:characterswithspaces> <o:version>14.0</o:version> </o:documentproperties> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>ja</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> <w:usefelayout /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!

cognisonance

Consider the following article, w11 8/15 pp 3-5 :

Do not become an “Internet Eve.” Be critical and suspicious of the information. Before trusting it, ask: (1) Who published this material? What are the author’s credentials? (2) Why was this published? What motivated the writer? Is there any bias? (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?

Now, this advice is generally good. We should find out who authored information on the internet, what credentials they have, what sources are used, if we can verify the sources, and if we are talking about scientific matters, how current is the information. On the surface, this all seems good and well. But notice that I missed one of the four points they bring out?

Yes, that’s right; I did not enumerate “Why was this published? What motivated the Writer? Is there any Bias?” Now this advice is still helpful because sometimes people have something to gain from what they say (for example, someone testifying or endorsing products) that casts doubt upon the testimony or endorsement. But this is bad advice for evaluating arguments. 1

Why would the Watch Tower Society want members to ask those questions? Do you think it is because they want readers to evaluate court testimony or endorsements? Or is it possible that they also want you to filter argumentation based on these questions as well? If that is the case, this would be an Ad hominem (Circumstantial) attack. 2

For JWs this fallacy can take the following form:

Former members have a vested interest in criticizing the Watch Tower Society.
Information we come across online can be from former members.
Therefore, such criticism should not be trusted.

The key point to remember is that someone’s argument should stand or fall on its own merit, not because of the source of the information.

To provide a non-JW example consider the following:

A study into the health risks of mobile phone[s] involved mobile phone companies.
Therefore, the study cannot be trusted. 3

1 Curtis, Gary N. "Argumentum ad hominem." Fallacy Files. 2 April. 2013 <http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html>.

2 Bennet, Bo. "Ad Hominem (Circumstantial)." Logically Fallacious. 2 April. 2013 <http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/11-ad-hominem-circumstantial>.

3 "Rhetological Fallacies." Information is Beautiful. 2 April. 2013 <http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/>

2

Watch Tower Fallacies - 4/2/2013

by cognisonance in

in another thread a poster, oubliette, asked to share logic fallacies we spot in wt publication.

that is a great idea and thread to which i've already contributed.

i'll also the contents of this post to that thread, but thought that it's easier to discuss a particular fallacy (or fallacies) in use in wts publications if we consider one quote at a time.

cognisonance

In another thread a poster, Oubliette, asked to share logic fallacies we spot in WT publication. That is a great idea and thread to which I've already contributed. I'll also the contents of this post to that thread, but thought that it's easier to discuss a particular fallacy (or fallacies) in use in WTS publications if we consider one quote at a time. So I'm planning on starting a weekly column here entitled Watch Tower Fallacies.

This week, I’ll focus on “Internet Eve.” Consider the following article, w11 8/15 pp 3-5 :

Do not become an “Internet Eve.” Be critical and suspicious of the information. Before trusting it, ask: (1) Who published this material? What are the author’s credentials? (2) Why was this published? What motivated the writer? Is there any bias? (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?

Now, this advice is generally good. We should find out who authored information on the internet, what credentials they have, what sources are used, if we can verify the sources, and if we are talking about scientific matters, how current is the information. On the surface, this all seems good and well. But notice that I missed one of the four points they bring out?

Yes, that’s right; I did not enumerate “Why was this published? What motivated the Writer? Is there any Bias?” Now this advice is still helpful because sometimes people have something to gain from what they say (for example, someone testifying or endorsing products) that casts doubt upon the testimony or endorsement. But this is bad advice for evaluating arguments. 1

Why would the Watch Tower Society want members to ask those questions? Do you think it is because they want readers to evaluate court testimony or endorsements? Or is it possible that they also want you to filter argumentation based on these questions as well? If that is the case, this would be an Ad hominem (Circumstantial) attack. 2

For JWs this fallacy can take the following form:

Former members have a vested interest in criticizing the Watch Tower Society.
Information we come across online can be from former members.
Therefore, such criticism should not be trusted.

The key point to remember is that someone’s argument should stand or fall on its own merit, not because of the source of the information.

To provide a non-JW example consider the following:

A study into the health risks of mobile phone[s] involved mobile phone companies.
Therefore, the study cannot be trusted. 3

1 Curtis, Gary N. "Argumentum ad hominem." Fallacy Files. 2 April. 2013 <http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html>.

2 Bennet, Bo. "Ad Hominem (Circumstantial)." Logically Fallacious. 2 April. 2013 <http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/11-ad-hominem-circumstantial>.

3 "Rhetological Fallacies." Information is Beautiful. 2 April. 2013 <http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/>

57

Logical Fallacies in WT Publications

by Oubliette in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:documentproperties> <o:revision>0</o:revision> <o:totaltime>0</o:totaltime> <o:pages>1</o:pages> <o:words>858</o:words> <o:characters>4892</o:characters> <o:company>oak park</o:company> <o:lines>40</o:lines> <o:paragraphs>11</o:paragraphs> <o:characterswithspaces>5739</o:characterswithspaces> <o:version>14.0</o:version> </o:documentproperties> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>ja</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> <w:usefelayout /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!

cognisonance

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 (i.e. this is used just as a different way to state the watchmaker analogy). 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? Is a house susceptible to mutations? It's quite easy to show that this analogy is weak.

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

57

Logical Fallacies in WT Publications

by Oubliette in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:documentproperties> <o:revision>0</o:revision> <o:totaltime>0</o:totaltime> <o:pages>1</o:pages> <o:words>858</o:words> <o:characters>4892</o:characters> <o:company>oak park</o:company> <o:lines>40</o:lines> <o:paragraphs>11</o:paragraphs> <o:characterswithspaces>5739</o:characterswithspaces> <o:version>14.0</o:version> </o:documentproperties> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>ja</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> <w:usefelayout /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!

cognisonance

Opps realized my original and reproduced analysis has the wrong fallacy. Instead of Affirming the Consequent, it should be Begging the Question. Additionally, it should be noted that the last paragraph came from forum member TD, who pointed out the distinction without a difference fallacy.

57

Logical Fallacies in WT Publications

by Oubliette in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:documentproperties> <o:revision>0</o:revision> <o:totaltime>0</o:totaltime> <o:pages>1</o:pages> <o:words>858</o:words> <o:characters>4892</o:characters> <o:company>oak park</o:company> <o:lines>40</o:lines> <o:paragraphs>11</o:paragraphs> <o:characterswithspaces>5739</o:characterswithspaces> <o:version>14.0</o:version> </o:documentproperties> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>ja</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> <w:usefelayout /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!

cognisonance

I like the OP too, as learning about logic fallacies helped me learn the TTATT as well. Here are some of the ones I've contributed in other threads:

We need not conclude that our loving Creator was the first one to make what we know as swords. Adam and Eve saw turning in front of the angels something that was blazing. What exactly was it? By the time Moses wrote the book of Genesis, swords were well-known and used in warfare. (Genesis 31:26; 34:26; 48:22; Exodus 5:21; 17:13) So Moses’ words "the flaming blade of a sword" enabled his readers to visualize to a degree what existed at the entrance of Eden. The information known in Moses’ day contributed to the understanding of such matters. And the language Moses employed must have been accurate, for Jehovah had it included in the Bible.—2 Timothy 3:16. (“Questions from Readers.” Watchtower 1 Feb. 1994: 31)

We need not conclude that our loving Creator was the first one to make what we know as swords.

Appeal to Consequences of a Belief, a form of a Red Herring. This appeal is being made because God couldn’t have invented the sword because that would make him seem unloving somehow. In other words, God inventing a weapon that is associated with killing would imply bad consequences, such as man imitating that invention and using it to kill each other in war. Alternatively, if God was the first to make such a weapon, that means he is the inventor of weaponry. Why would a loving God invent weapons, one thus argues. Rather it feels better to believe that war and weapons came about only from Satan and sinful men, not from a loving God.

By the time Moses wrote the book of Genesis, swords were well-known and used in warfare. So Moses’ words "the flaming blade of a sword" enabled his readers to visualize to a degree what existed at the entrance of Eden. The information known in Moses’ day contributed to the understanding of such matters. And the language Moses employed must have been accurate, for Jehovah had it included in the Bible.

Affirming the Consequent, a form of Circular reasoning. The bible is accurate (unstated premise). The bible says that God used a flaming sword. Thus, the description can be considered accurate because God had it included in the Bible.

It's also a distinction without a difference fallacy. One on had the author is saying it would have been unloving for God to create the sword, a weapon. I ask why this would be unloving. To which I can only think of the negative implications associated with him being the inventor of the sword. Next the author says that while God didn’t technically create the first sword, what he did have placed at the entrance of the Garden of Eden could be visualized to a degree of accuracy as being a sword. So wouldn’t the first statement about it being unloving for God to create the sword still be an issue? How is this any different? He didn’t create the sword per se, just something that resembled it.

It doesn't matter if 'Sword' is the correct word for the spinning 'Thing' or not. If the spinning 'Thing' was lethal by design, then it was a weapon by default. And there's no moral difference between the assertion that God introduced humans to weapons vs. God introduced humans to swords.

53

A recent discussion that had me stumped!

by Terry in

okay--first off, i wasn't involved in the following conversation; i was eavesdropping!.

you know how it is when you happen to be in a public place.

you are minding your own business until you're not minding your own business.

cognisonance

'What if it could be established that pedophiles are the way they are because of their genes?'

What if hard determinsim is real and thus free will is illusionary? Do we stop punishing harmful actions just because people may not techically have been able to do otherwise? I don't think anyone would actually argue that, but the type of punishment and how we view the person might change.