Posts by Marvin Shilmer

18

The art of defending Watchtower's lies

by opusdei1972 in

the following article, is one of the best efforts to defend one of the most absurd doctrines of the watchtower society:.

http://www.truetheology.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=172.

may be the writer was inspired in freddy's thoughts.

Marvin Shilmer

The fact is that the Watchtower leaders need always to impose a scandalous doctrine. And as Gruss said , the blood ban was intended to convince the membership they were being "persecuted" and "suffering for righteousness sake," a sure sign they were "in the truth."

This fits the model of "strictness" depicted by authors Stark and Iannaccone in their 1997 article Why the Jehovah's Witnesses Grow so Rapidly: a Theoretical Application, published in Journal of Contemporary Religion (1997). In their presentation Watchtower's blood taboo is pointed out as one instance of this phenomena.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

Marvin Shilmer

Yes, you were bickering over your own quote. Very weird. No idea why you would do that and then attempt to blame me for that.

Either you're incredibly dense or in a state of denial. This dispute of record was you using broad terms to restate something I said in narrower terms. It's not a "bickering over your own words" to point out that someone has substantively altered a proposition.

I look forward to your updated question.

You've already answered my question for what it asked. Thank you.

I am incredibly confused as to why you would think I would bother with anger on you.

I haven't said you've bothered with anger on me. I've said you're loaded with anger. There's a difference.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

Marvin Shilmer

It's not bickering to say "the question doesn't make sense, it needs to be made clear", it's the only way discussion on equal footing can continue.

Viviane,

Above, when you finally made some attempt at a responsible reply to the question I posed to you, you complained that it was too vague because it asked whether the thing in question was "fine". Rightly you finally pointed out this needed to be narrowed so you would know whether it, for example, inquired of fine legally or fine morally, or perhaps something else. When my question was initially asked to you a concern of your responses in this discussion was you plying general terms when restating things said to you. In my case the concern was you suggesting I thought this or that was "OK" or "fine" when what I asserted was much narrower. I had not said this or that was "OK" or "fine" I had said this or that was OK legally or legal. Big difference. When I would point this out you'd respond with something akin to retort. You did this over and over again. That is bickering.

I am curious as to why you think I'm angry in any way.

In this discussion you've demonstrated instances of refusing to take people for what they say in their own words and instead take them as you've restated them with your words. In my case you did this in response to my answer to a broad statement you made of me. You stated of me "So you think as long as there is no law against discriminating against women it's fine" to which I replied "No." You responded saying "BS. You said if it was legal it should be fine." In fact I had said no such a thing. I had said--as you later acknowledged--that if something is legal it's legal. I had not said if something is legal it is fine. Big difference. This kind of responsive behavior typically comes from someone carrying a lot of anger, which is why I said you're loaded with anger. Calm down. I'm not an enemy.

43

Atheism

by Jonathan Drake in

jw
friends

recent events and book reads (one suggested by cofty i believe- thank you) have lead me to the only logical and acceptable conclusion:.

there is no god.. simple logical reasoning: matter can neither me created or destroyed.

so the amount of mass in the universe is constant.

Marvin Shilmer

Marvin - Theists make extravagant claims about their god. We can prove they are all wrong.
It is nothing at all like the relationship between you and the bugs in your colon.

I have not suggested one is similar to the other. What I said was to address broad statements asserting logical operations.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

Marvin Shilmer

It is. I used you to prove it. That should definitely tell you something. I suspect it's not, but it should.

All I've seen you use me for is a person to vent on. You're loaded with anger, and you're loaded with yourself. You bicker over nothing.

I'm not your enemy. I'm not trying to trap you. I'm just trying to have a conversation about a current and correlated topics. But having a conversation takes two, each of which is willing to answer relevant questions.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

Marvin Shilmer

First, as far as I know, nothing called "Miss White America" exists. If it does, provide me a link and I'll look at it and see what it is and then form an opinion since obviously, it's 100% stupid to form an opinion on something that doesn't exist or, if it does, I don't know anything about or, if it is something you are using as an example, you've failed to explain what it is or provide details I could use to form an opinion.

Something like it exists. See: Miss Black USA

Second, do you mean fine as in legal? Fine as in moral? Again, none of those things can be answered without without knowing more about the thing you are talking about. Is is a business? A private organization with membership dues? Does the name mean that ONLY white people can be involved? Is it limited to people named White? Is it like the Odd Fellows group that also allows women, meaning the name doesn't reflect what their membership policy is?

1. Legal and moral.
2. What I'm asking about is a 501(c)3 corporation.
3. In the case of my question, yes, only "white" people could win the pageant.

Thirds, courts get involved when someone brings a lawsuit or charges or is seeking redress. Which of these things are you asking about? Courts don't just "get involved" on their own. Ask you asking if I think it should be illegal? Should law enforcement and then courts should get involved? That someone should sue them? That the courts should break tradition and get involved?

That is part of my question to you. In the case of a Miss White USA pageant should, in your view, anyone get the courts involved to resolve anything related to discriminatory behavior (since that is at issue in this discussion).

You are asking me to make a ton of assumptions about what you mean, what type of organization you are talking about, how they operate, etc. That's why it's a question that I am refusing to answer. You've given me nothing to work with without trying to read your mind. It doesn't make sense, asking someone to assume details.

Without changing the question asked, make assumptions you feel necessary in order to answer what's been asked. If you need more clarification please feel free to inquire.
If your view did not matter to me I'd not ask it.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

Marvin Shilmer

In any event, even without out, you've been told many times all you have to do is ask what is wrong with the question if you want to know. Until you DO ask, there is no burden on me.

Wow. That's telling!

Logic 101: A burden of proof rests on whoever makes an assertion to prove that assertion true.

What this means: This burden does not shift because someone else does not ask you a question.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

Marvin Shilmer

I did answer exactly as you did. Your first act was to point out that the question itself didn't make sense. I've done that and offered to elaborate. So far you've chosen to remain in the dark on why your question needs improving. The difference is, I refuse to assume to know what you really mean and answer that instead.

It's false to claim I thought the question I answered didn't make sense. It did make sense. The lady wanted to know why I didn't want creationism taught in schools and that is the question I answered. It is an entirely legitimate question to ask, and the question made perfect sense. The sole thing I corrected was the misconception that science is a theory. It's not. But the question asked was valid, and it made sense. Oh, and I answered what was asked. I didn't dodge the question by making excuses to not answer what was actually asked at face value. I was asked for my position and I gave it in precise enough terms that it is testable.

I don't think my question needs improving. If you think it does feel free to improve it, that is so long as you don't fail to answer my question for what it asks first. Then we can entertain whether your re-framed question asks what I want to have you answer. That said, I'm not really interested in your answers to questions you want to have me ask. I'm more interested in your answer to the question I'd have you answer.

So, at this point, you have literally answered the same way I have with the notable exception that I haven't told you what is wrong with your question, merely offered to do so.

Nope. See above.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

Marvin Shilmer

Is this your way of asking for help?

No. It's may way of kindly telling you the burden of proof is yours to prove your assertions are true.

That you think my question needs help is your view. I don't happen to agree with it, but it's your view nevertheless. Regardless, the question asked to you is either answerable or unanswerable as it is. If the comparative question you offered is a decent measure, then my question is answerable because I provided a testable, thoughtful and relevant response to all features of what was asked.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

Marvin Shilmer

For comparison, here is a question with very similar construction qualities

Let's take a look.

The comparable question you offer is this:

Because science is by definition a "theory"--not testable, observable, nor repeatable. Why do you object to creationism or intelligent design being taught in school?

That question is answerable.

I'd answer it this way: First, science is not a theory. Science is a method. Second, I only object to creationism and/or intelligent design being taught in public schools in the United States because public schools in the United States are funded by a government (or governments) having a tenet that no religious test will be required as a qualification to any public trust, which to me means teaching religious concepts as valid is illegal. Also, and not to get tedious, "intelligent design" is a religious construct insofar as I'm concerned.

Viviane,

If, as you claim, the question you posed is comparable to the one I asked you then the question I asked you is answerable.