Originally posted by robbie carrobieHere's an example. What "empirical data" do you have to counteract the impression [that you're giving on this thread, as you do on many threads] that, from the way you write and what you write, and all your little rhetorical routines and devices, that you are quite clearly a victim of a cult who doesn't realize it? Your "personal testimony" aside, can you refute this suggestion with empirical evidence?
No i do not, this is the second time you have attempted to make this point, I do, where I can provide empirical data, for example ...
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut how do you know what these two people, whose quotes i provided a week or two ago, were talking about? Have You read their personal testimony and know the inner most details of their lives, you don't know the reason why they left the organisation, you know absolutely nothing about them but have labelled them liars and apostates?!
If they state that they have no axe to grind and then grind an axe, what would you
construe that as FMF.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat they "grind an axe" is just your opinion, robbie. And it's exactly what a cult member would say about a member who has walked away or who has displeased the leadership.
If they state that they have no axe to grind and then grind an axe, what would you
construe that as FMF.
Originally posted by FMFthere is no onus on me whatsoever to produce any such data, I am not the one making
Here's an example. What "empirical data" do you have to counteract the impression [that you're giving on this thread, as you do on many threads] that, from the way you write and what you write, and all your little rhetorical routines and devices, that you are quite clearly a victim of a cult who doesn't realize it? Your "personal testimony" aside, can you refute this suggestion with empirical evidence?
the assertion, although if i was pressed upon the matter i am sure that i could
demonstrate thorough a comparison with the characteristic traits of known cults that its
far from the truth. One would simply need to define what a cult is, what it practices
and demonstrate that we are far removed from such.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou have zero concern for empirical data, it's just a fancy little device you've employed so as to not ever have to critically examine why someone has decided to leave your organisation. It's also the same tactic you use so you don't have to ever critically examine the science which contradicts your chosen religious beliefs.
bizzare whacko world, my man, you the rational scientist must surely appreciate my
concern for empirical data?
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't think anyone is trying to change your mind, robbie. Me for example, I'm more interested in the way you react to the 'accusations' leveled at your organisation; and whether or not you come across like a cult member grasping at things in the way that cult members do.
there is no onus on me whatsoever to produce any such data, I am not the one making
the assertion....
Originally posted by Proper Knobits based upon three or four obvious pieces of evidence, firstly, its a known
But how do you know what these two people, whose quotes i provided a week or two ago, were talking about? You have read their personal testimony, you don't know the reason why they left the organisation, you know absolutely nothing about them but have labelled them liars and apostates?!
technique of apostates to disarm the reader, the assurance that their motives are
pure , but. . . .then comes the hidden agenda, secondly it appeared to me that you
gleaned these quotations from a site of ex Jehovahs witnesses, a place frequented
by apostates all clamouring to give their opinions of watchtower articles from 1922,
thirdly if someone states that they don't have an axe to grind and then proceeds to
do so, what would you term it? Lastly as i stated, i am interested in empirical data,
not personal testimony as it cannot be corroborated, lacks objectivity and
perspective and even may give a distorted impression of reality as a whole. In
some cases it may even be designed to be deceptive and as a man of science i
simply prefer empirical data, i hope you understand. Now the world chess
championships are about to start and i must follow this forth game.
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobsigh, such a man of science as I must be hounded by such insults when calling for
You have zero concern for empirical data, it's just a fancy little device you've employed so as to not ever have to critically examine why someone has decided to leave your organisation. It's also the same tactic you use so you don't have to ever critically examine the science which contradicts your chosen religious beliefs.
empirical data as evidence is simply incredulous, yet even the Christ himself was
mocked!
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFno empirical evidence FMF, too bad for you that your currency is mere opinion
I don't think anyone is trying to change your mind, robbie. Me for example, I'm more interested in the way you react to the 'accusations' leveled at your organisation; and whether or not you come across like a cult member grasping at things in the way that cult members do.
gathered from the spiritual buffet table!
Originally posted by FMFAre you for real? There is no contradiction at all in my statement. Let me try "again" as it seems you are trying to make this a conflict instead of truly asking questions to learn why we do what we do and the reasons behind it, aren't you?
Originally posted by galveston75
[b]Sorry but we are not looking to add some meaning to our lifes. That would be selfish would it not? We are not in this for some supid glory reward....
Originally posted by galveston75
[...] it can also be the most rewarding thing a person can be on many levels. It can also make one feel so blessed to b ...[text shortened]... his son and what his Kingdom will do for humans in the future.
You contradict yourself.[/b]
No one I know is doing this to gain what they can "first" and then hope they can help someone to learn about Jehovah, "secondly".
The rewarding part is the secondary result that is a bonus.
To think we are in this just for the personal rewards may be the way you view life and have been raised but that is not what this work we do is about.
If you can't understand that then that says alot about your views of life I would think.
This statement by you is no different then a person becoming a doctor just so he can bring in the big $$$$$ as his motive instead of why he should be a doctor which is to help people. Right?
So if you are only responding to make this into a conflict, I see no need to converse with you and waist my time. That is not what this thread is about.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNothing more than conjecture and postulation masquerading as fact. I'm only interested in empirical data Rob not your half baked biased theories as to why someone might wish to leave your organisation.
its based upon three or four obvious pieces of evidence, firstly, its a known
technique of apostates to disarm the reader, the assurance that their motives are
pure , but. . . .then comes the hidden agenda, secondly it appeared to me that you
gleaned these quotations from a site of ex Jehovahs witnesses, a place frequented
by apostates all cl ...[text shortened]... and. Now the world chess
championships are about to start and i must follow this forth game.