Posts by Max Divergent

535

AAWA is here!! (The Association of Anti-Watchtower Activists)

by cedars in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcic4g5tulw.

http://www.jwactivists.org.

facebook the association of anti-watchtower activists.

Max Divergent

Some people seem to be making criticisms of two main points: 1) the name, and 2) of John Cedars' backing the decisions of the board.

As to the name, I think those holding back support on the basis they think the name inappropriate are either missing the point or rejecting the messy approach of collective action. Not everyone in an association agrees with every action, but they still work together to achieve an objective. Over time they can campaign within the association for what they see, hopefully on good grounds, as a better approach (like a different name if that's their view). But in the meantime they just get on with supporting the group's objectives in accord with its rules. Those holding back support over the name might not be a good fit for a cooperative body, maybe it's better they don't get involved.

On Cedars' defense of board decisions including the name (eg: "... this is how we're doing it. It's not just me, it's the entire board. .... When board decisions are made they need to be stuck to through thick and thin.... Once the board makes a decision it is my job to make sure it is implemented and stuck to no matter what...").

He simply states the truth that as President of the association it is his job to uphold and defend the decisions of the board made in accord with its rules. Maybe he personally agrees with it, maybe he doesn't: that doesn't matter in a formal sense. Unless Arizona or AAWA's rules say differently, all we should hear is the President's support for the decisions of the board until the board makes a different decision, if it ever does. Provided any later decision is made in accord with all relevant rules, then the President's job is to support that decision just as strongly or resign. That's how it works; that's what he's done to date.

Other board members might engage in debate if they wish, preferably with members of the association, but if they happened to want to do so publicly that's up to them. AAWA will live or die by its decisions: no doubt they will listen to and hear public comment, then deliberate and come to a conclusion on whatever matters they think have import on achieving their objectives.

(Can't get rid of the italics: keep coming back once I hit Submit).

14

Why WLCs lottery counter-example for "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is flawed

by bohm in

i recently began reading strobels "the case for faith" and in chapter two wlc repeat his refutation that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

his argument is as follows: .

this standard would prevent you from believing in all sorts of events that we do rationally embrace.

Max Divergent

If you read what WLC wrote (the beginning of my post), you will notice he didnt try to proove the resurrection by analogy, but to question if "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is true

I did read and understand the extract. The author uses a lottery analogy to question the ECREE rule of thumb and the apparent purpose of that analogy / quesiton was, I infer in part from your commentary, to set himslef up to make some other analogy to make the resurection, or anything else extraordinary he might advocate, seem plausible to his audience.

WLC only talk of a single guess coming out correct, not one of all guesses made being correct.

Not quite, he seeks to apply the rule of thumb to ANY and EVERY lottery result since, he says, all specific lottery results are 1:x,000,000 events. He said nothing (in the extract) about advance guessing. Thus he says the ECREE rule of thumb requires the viewer's skepticism in all lottery results since x,000,000 other combinations could have been drawn.

As you rightly said in the OP, ECREE is an inadequate rule to be applied at the standard of rigour required to actually establish anything - eg: what is 'extraordinary'?. It wasn't formulated for application to contemporary reports on a recent event. It was put to set a rough guide for the level of skepticism required when confronted with claims odd events are explained by demons, aliens, witchcraft, conspiracies etc.

One flaw is that the newsreader and lottery officials are not making a claim. They are making a report on a recent past event based in multiple lines of verifiable evidence such as independent eye witnesses, documentation, video tape and whatever other measures a properly conducted lottery takes to ensure the integrity of their process. That is, it is a verifiable report and not a claim or an assertion: Sagan cited this rule of thumb to address claims and assertions, not such factual reports. (This goes to the application of the rule of thumb, not the lottery or resurection examples.)

Thus Craig makes a mischevious, spurious and plain silly argument picking fault in a rule of thumb he missapplied. A strawman I think.

In any case, if one gets over all that and says a factual report is equivilent to a 'claim', one can say that an announcement of the results to a well conducted and fair lottery result is:

1) not an extraordinary claim since the fact of six numbers being drawn is a near certainty and all results are equally likley; and

2) subject of extraordinary evidence (ie: all the integrity measures in place for a fair lottery are more than are in place for ordinary events, whatever ordinary is).

Well, as i allready replied in most science results are considered sufficient extraordinary to warrent publication when its 1:20.

I know you're being devil's advocate, but I'd really like to see a peer reveiwed journal article published saying a lottery resulting in numbers beig drawn is suprising. In my joy and mirth I'd be looking out the window for flapping swine.

but thats just affirming the consequent: in effect, you are now arguing that the reason why WLCs objection to the claim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is flawed is that extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. its not an argument.

Quite right it's not a direct argument on the author's misapplication of ECREE or anything to do with the author's spurious objection: it was a response to a lawyer's musings on evidence. Of course ECREE is a good general guide, but it does not suplant any more rigerous standard like the rules of evidence for a court or scientific standards.

Saying its a matter of methaphysics and not science to discuss the resurrection is exactly the type of conclusion WLC want to arrive at

Maybe. But that dosn't deminish the burden of proof required to establish Jesus was resurected. And meth does results in delusions, I'm told.

The reason why WLC has such an easy time with many atheists and is held in high regard by christians is exactly because his argument are very often met by name calling and knee-jerk reactions that are easily dismantled. your intuition is correct, but that dosnt mean any argument is too.

Whatever.

I think we're all in sufficently furious agreement.

14

Why WLCs lottery counter-example for "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is flawed

by bohm in

i recently began reading strobels "the case for faith" and in chapter two wlc repeat his refutation that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

his argument is as follows: .

this standard would prevent you from believing in all sorts of events that we do rationally embrace.

Max Divergent

WLC would properly say: "if the odds of guessing in advance that jesus would be raised from the dead was 1:1'000'000 or even lower, that has no baring whatever on whether we can accept that he actually did, given the information we now have, because you can accept something like that in the case of the lottery!". At some point we need to argue why the two situations are different.

As others have pointed out better than I, the answer would be that there is simply nothing in common between a game of maths (a lottery) and biological death (the precursor to resurection) regardless of how the numbers are spun. There is no analogy or statistical argument to be had and this Craig bloke is a dunce for, apparently, making one. Probabilities are one thing, fantasies are another.

An event that was one in a million is not extraordinary?

No, it's not. A fair and well subscribed lottery might be subject of tens or hundreds of millions of individual guesses: that one or more get the right answer is a matter of pure chance and is quite likely to occur at least once in most lotteries. Let's say two million guesses are made in the face of one million possible combinations - that one or more guesses will be correct is unsuprising (I know the numbers are diffent in real lotteries).

But thats what need to be argued.

That a man can be resurected is not a matter of probability or liklihood. Billions now dead were not resurected. Whether some supernatural act resulted in one being resurected is a matter of metaphysics or somthing, not statistics. Just coz someone can imagaine and/or write that somthing happened does not make a mathmatical argument of minute probabilities available (outside of navel gazing clubs).

BOTR: Why do you need extraordinary proof?

You need proof appropriate to the matter being proved. The proof for a lottery is things like documentaiton, witnesses and video used for anti-fraud type measures. For example, more proof should be required to prove a murder case beyond reasonable doubt than jay walking. 'Reasonable' becomes a bigger hurdle the more consequences are attached to what is being proved. To prove a man was resurected may have profound impacts on how we understand life, thus the proof required is more than some spurious rubbish about lottery odds and ancient writings.

14

Why WLCs lottery counter-example for "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is flawed

by bohm in

i recently began reading strobels "the case for faith" and in chapter two wlc repeat his refutation that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

his argument is as follows: .

this standard would prevent you from believing in all sorts of events that we do rationally embrace.

Max Divergent

you would not believe the report on the evening news that the numbers chosen in last night's lottery were 4, 2, 9, 7, 8 and 3, because that would be an event of extraordinary improbability

Rubbish. This dude is a liar. This is one of the most basic, stupid, dishonest uses of stats going. But typical for someone trying to argue for god, if that's what this author is doing.

The probability of six numbers being drawn in a scheduled, properly organized lottery is 0.5 - the numbers will be drawn, or they won't be. The likelihood of such a draw resulting in six numbers being correclty reported on the news is much higher - 0.9 according to a pessimistic bohm. So there should be no difficulty in accepting that 4, 2, 9, 7, 8 and 3 were drawn if they are within the range of the numbers used in the lottery: they are as likely as any other set of six numbers from the barrel in a fair lottery.

If the odds of a single guess selecting in advance the numbers drawn is 1:1,000,000 that has no baring whatever on whether we can accept that a set of numbers was drawn and that they happened to be 4, 2, 9, 7, 8 and 3. There is no 'extraordinary improbability' that six numbers will be drawn and that they might be the six announced on the news the next night.

In the absence of an 'extraordinary claim', there is no call for extraordinary evidence.

As to this idea of the Jesus resurrection happening, there is neither a statistical argument to make nor is there an analogy to anything available. It either happened or it didn't, and the likelihood on all the available evidence is that the resurrection didn't happen. But maybe it did. Either way, Carl Sagan's good sense rule of thumb 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' stands.

I remember reading an article saying some Christian wrote (and I went to one of their bookstores to see the book for myself and it was true) that the failure rate for condoms was somthing extraordinary - 60% or somthing like that. But the success rate for abstinance was said to be 100%. How could such silly numbers be gotten to? Well, if you took a survey of pregnant teens and asked 'did you consider or try to use a condom?' and the answer was yes, then 60% (or whatever the number was) might be arrived at. But then you should ask 'did you consider or try to use abstinance?', and a number will be arrived at to be compared with the 60%. But they've just taken some notion that abstinance works 100% and compared it to some other data arrived at in a different way to get an answer to push to gullible people. Just another dishonest use of stats.

101

What do you mean?! I ALWAYS go to the beach after service and wear long pants and button up shirts while I play a game in the sand with my family! Sometimes I wear button up long sleeve shirts too!

by Crisis of Conscience in

the wts likes to imply how jws should dress in and outside of the hall.

you always want to set an example.. so i couldn't help but share this beauty in the january 15th, 2013, study edition of the watchtower.

i always go to the beach like this!

Max Divergent

At risk of prolonging trivia... Of course wearing chinos is unusual on the beach. I can remember wearing trousers on the beach twice: once for wedding and once because we decide to walk on the beach after a meal at a beach side restaurant. Maybe this group is supposed to have spontaneously just decided to head to the beach after a meeting or service? If so, that's quite healthy for JWs. Few would plan to wear chinos on the beach, but at least the WTS is showing JWs having normal(-ish) fun, not the usual meeting, service, study, pray routine.

I didn't say wearing meeting clothes to the beach was normal (!!), just that covering up the skin (with some kind of clothing), especially in family settings, is hardly freakish behaviour of itself. I think I wrote that after a week on a family oriented beach (ie: a bay with no waves, everyone had small kids and most had beach tents: not the Gold Coast) when temps were in the 40s. Some people covered up more than others. No one wore chinos. But if some grandpa had chosen to, well, freaking good on him is all I'd want to say.

55

Anyone noticed a curiosity on the Memorial Invitation for 2013 ?

by EdenOne in

i can't scan the memorial invitation for 2013, but i was looking at it today and noticed something curious on the front drawing.. we have jesus as the central figure of the composition.

to his right and bottom, a large crown, in colour, of shiny happy people of diverse origins.. separated from this by the figure of jesus, is another group, a much smaller one, on the left and as if ascending to the top, and grayed.. clearly portrayed in this group is the face of ct russell and apparently william tyndale.

but then, also sarah and abraham and other personalities of the ot seem to be represented there.

Max Divergent

Got mine today too. I'd thought I might tease them by 'spotting' Captain Janeway or something if they came around. I was out the back when Mrs Divergent, being a sport, called out for me to go to the front to 'see beauty' saying the door bell was about to ring. Cryptic, but I got the idea it was JWs.

OMFG.... the two most beautiful, gorgeous, to die for women I've seen in too long ... African, clothes just right (modest, and that was better), make-up, hair - the whole thing. They smiled (brilliant radiance), offered the invitaiton (sensuous timbre with a slight but wonderful accent) and I said "thank you" (sincerely, but not referring to the invitation). As they headed off I said 'I'll get the gate for you', they said 'thank you, bye' and they're off. Gone. Like zephyrs into the wind.

As I recovered from this encounter with perfection, the next pair wanders past: a sour-face leading (I guess an elder's wife) with a non-descript wearing a tent tagging along. Sour-face gets held up at my neighbour's door: he seems to be a born again or something. Blah, blah, blah. Who cares. I might have done my Janeway gag with her just for the joy of seeing her reaction; but I couldn't do anything but be a perfect gentleman with the wonders of nature who did come to my door.

Maybe I have found two perfect reasons to go to the Memorial?

Maybe not.

57

What is the most powerful album that you have ever listened to?

by zed is dead in

jw
friends

Max Divergent

I see several have nominated it already, but even if you don't happen to like the album or the band personally I think Pink Floyd's The Wall is THE powerful album for XJWs. It's clear, sometimes brutal themes of loss, abandonment, alienation, madness and ultimate despair and ostracism matches the JW life to a tee.

For those who aren't sure why so many have nominated it, the album follows Pink who grows up the harassed son of a neurotic and domineering mother after dad died in the war (the neurotic and domineering WTS even calls itself 'mother' as if to make the parallel clear!). Pink's life spirals out of control until he's had enough and builds a wall as a barrier between him and his world: something many unhappy JWs do just to survive trapped in the con they are God's chosen people and God chose a bloody awful life for them. He goes mad in his own bedevilled world behind the wall, like JWs sometimes do, then as the wall crumbles he has to face the awful reality of life and his place in it.

Well, that's what I think it's about anyhow. I thought that as a young and miserable JW boy feeling abandoned to a mad and horrible world of alienation, repression and quiet desperation. It helped me stay a bit sane knowing somoene else knew and gave me songs about it.

101

What do you mean?! I ALWAYS go to the beach after service and wear long pants and button up shirts while I play a game in the sand with my family! Sometimes I wear button up long sleeve shirts too!

by Crisis of Conscience in

the wts likes to imply how jws should dress in and outside of the hall.

you always want to set an example.. so i couldn't help but share this beauty in the january 15th, 2013, study edition of the watchtower.

i always go to the beach like this!

Max Divergent

Get a grip.

The OP image was Adealdie, Australia and the March 2013 picture could be southern hemisphere too. Skin cancer rates in Australia and New Zealand (probably South Africa too) are 2-4 times times higher than US, Canada and UK (depending on the source) as a result of ozone depleation and outdoor lifestyle factors. As a result many people do cover up on the beach including in garments like shown in the March 2013 image which are made of a fabric is designed to block ultra violet rays but be acceptably comfortable in the water. The amount of skin coverage in the OP image is unsuprising on beaches or anywhere outdooors in Australia, although the style of clothing might be uncommon on the beach.

http://www.cancer.org.au/preventing-cancer/sun-protection/

Showing these images is a pretty responsible action by the WTS - even if they also feed into the body modesty ideas they promote.

http://www.cancer.org.au/preventing-cancer/sun-protection/sun-protection-products/swimwear.html

Use the above link to buy your own WT approved beachwear.

11

AUSTRALIA: Migration Scam Being Operated by Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society

by jwleaks in

jw leaks has updated their "human rights" page with hundreds of pages of documents released, all relating to 19 separate court cases involving jehovah's witnesses conducted through the european court of human rights and also the australian refugee tribunal.. .

the 9 cases that were run through the australian refugee tribunal by the jehovah's witnesses all came from lebanon.. .

one former member of jehovah's witnesses, who advised on a number of refugee and migration cases for jehovah's witnesses and the watchtower bible and tract society of australia, and provided the documents and background information (yet to be published) to jw leaks, stated:.

Max Divergent

One former member of Jehovah's Witnesses ... provided the documents and background information (yet to be published) to JW Leaks...

So, the tantalising propect of inside information from a former member who is, by definition, out-of-date, out-of-the-loop and probably has an axe to grind... why not wait till you post these 'provided' documents before making a big claim like the JWs ' clearly broke the law'.

JWs are as entitled as anyone to apply for a visa and if they get some pastoral assistance with the process, that is not a crime. Helping with forms and the English language etc is not giving migration advice.

The posted documents show authorities making decisions on the basis of facts in front of them based on a range of materials in accord with the law. So what?

they were also helping Australian circuit overseers and missionaries get into a number of Asian countries with the use of dummy corporations and businesses set up by Jehovah's Witnesses for this very purpose.

They are a corporaiton. What else does a corporation do but apply for its officials to go overseas in the name of a corporaiton?

This is half baked.

11

Choose one: confident Belief based on Faith.....or.........?

by Terry in

which, if either, is best for you: being a believer who accepts on faith.

being a skeptic who doesn't trust belief and prefers to rely on fact?.

no cop outs allowed such as: both.. .

Max Divergent

This faith and belief thing seems all random and idiosyncratic to me, based on the outcomes one can observe of ideologically driven politics, religion etc. Sometimes random things work out well: say if you win the lottery. Usually they work out badly.

Evidence-based approaches reduce random elements and systematicly approach attaining useful outcomes. Much better chance of things going right.

For me, given the choice, I go with the option that is most likley to provide the best possible results. That is evidence-based reasoning.

Max