Rocky

Got a link to that? Inquiring minds want to know.

My hunch is that they don't care how inept they look... perhaps because the lion's share of their revenue comes from overseas outreach. How many people outside the US either don't bother to search the interwebs for insight on TWI or don't have online access in the first place?

Wow... that is tragic. Before anyone else starts analyzing the situation, I recommend you help your son get a VERY good lawyer. Solve the legal problems with your d-i-l moving grandson out of state without your son's approval before you try to figure out how to change her mind about TWI. Btw, I'm a grandparent also, so please rest assured that I empathize with you completely.

Alternatively,

We are the sum and substance of our experience, eh? This might seem like something of a tangent on the subject of this thread, but I think it goes directly to the heart of it. Last night I finished reading (first time through anyway) Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. The book is... well, amazing. (this video is less than four minutes) But what I found particularly salient in the book, from the standpoint of our common cult history, is a section (pg 250 in the hardback edition) called Ignoramus. "Humans have sought to understand the universe at least since the Cognitive Revolution. Our ancestors put a great deal of time and effort into trying to discover the rules that govern the natural world. But modern science differs from all previous traditions of knowledge in three critical ways: a. The willingness to admit ignorance. Modern science is based on the Latin injunction ignoramus -- 'we do not know'. It assumes that we don't know everything. Even more critically, it accepts that the things that we think we know could be proven wrong as we gain more knowledge. No concept, idea or theory is sacred and beyond challenge... The Scientific Revolution has not been a revolution of knowledge. It has been above all a revolution of ignorance." To me, the significance of that concept cannot be overstated. What was the critical essence of The Way International, Victor Paul Wierwille and Loy Craig Martindale? Well, beside the fact that the expression "The Way" was ostensibly invoked in the name of the cult because Jesus said he was the way, the truth and the life, Jesus wasn't the focal point of the cult, nor was Jesus' Father. The focal point and the fulcrum on which the entire "movement" turned was Wierwille's (outrageous and fictional) claim that God made Wierwille the keeper of God's truth (i.e. the snowstorm claim). We (those of us who were around when Wierwille and Martindale were in power, at least) also know that there was no humility in veepee's claim to be the (to borrow a phrase from HULU's series "The Path") keeper of the light. Those who fell into TWI subsequent to Wierwille/Martindale have the tremendous resource of Charlene's memoir, Undertow. Charlene eloquently exposed Wierwille's hubris and how it played out in his "research department." The Way International is the anti-thesis of how to actually discover truth. And the social structure Wierwille established to glorify himself demonstrates the dysfunction of that hubris. And Skyrider, I concur emphatically with you regarding those who have set up copycat ministries.

To be expected. Still tragic.

Are you sure that tree isn't in a dictionary?

A couple more books to contribute to the discussion of those points: Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind I'm currently reading this overview of world/human history and find it exquisitely fascinating. Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity from Amazon, " Providing an intimate window into a loving Muslim home, Qureshi shares how he developed a passion for Islam before discovering, almost against his will, evidence that Jesus rose from the dead and claimed to be God. Unable to deny the arguments but not wanting to deny his family, Qureshi struggled with an inner turmoil that will challenge Christians, Muslims, and all those who are interested in the world’s greatest religions." I just learned about Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus today and find the claim about evidence that Jesus rose from the dead to be intriguing... not sure I believe the claim (that what he found is actually evidence), however.

Timing is everything.

Very nicely put. btw, Steve, glad you're healing up.

Raf, I would recommend that you avoid taking Mr Confused's bait.

That comment again demonstrates lack of understanding of the concept of "I statements." I refer you back to me post about 15 minutes ago. I provided a link to reference material. Do you want to continue to be confused?

Allow me... Mr Confused may or may not be intentionally confused on that point... but he demonstrates (either willful or incidental) lack of understanding of "I statements." "It is not selfish to use the word "I." It does not mean that you only care about yourself. Rather, "I" statements are direct, rational, objective and honest. "I" statements show that you are taking responsibility for how you feel and are not blaming someone else for your feelings. "I" statements are factual and non-judgmental.

Where in that post do you see anything that suggests Raf is trying to tell you what to believe or to do?

Reincarnation of Professor Irwin Corey?

A search on FB revealed two people asking (in FB groups related to TWI) for contact information on Rico and Robin in Florida and for people to pray for them. The two posts were dated March 12 and 15 respectively. The March 12 post got comments indicating someone got contact info privately. The March 15 post got 40+ comments, most just saying they are praying for Rico's family and/or TWI. One or more alluded to the fact that the Mag family had left.

Just over two years ago (Feb 28, - March 2, 2015), I witnessed some big time arguing -- my first time sitting in on oral arguments at the Supreme Court in Washington. It was a thrill. On Feb 28, I toured the Newseum. The relevant point for this thread is that while there, I purchased Jay Heinrichs' book, "Thank You for Arguing." I recommend it to readers and participants of this discussion on atheism. The author's collaborators started a website where resources and space for practicing/honing one's rhetorical (argument) skills. arguelab.com. The available resources for readers, writers and speakers to make sound, valid arguments are vast. The help the ones who wish to clearly express themselves to do so with decreasing frustration. And they can substantially reduce tension in discussions. Now, back to your regularly scheduled discussion of Atheist FAQ. And may all participants grow in their knowledge and personal communication skills.

May I suggest that some participants in this thread (esp. TLC) could benefit tremendously from this MOOC on the subject of understanding arguments. Think Again: How to Reason and Argue Reasoning is important. This series of four short courses will teach you how to do it well. You will learn simple but vital rules to follow in thinking about any topic at all and common and tempting mistakes to avoid in reasoning. We will discuss how to identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments by other people (including politicians, used car salesmen, and teachers) and how to construct arguments of your own in order to help you decide what to believe or what to do. These skills will be useful in dealing with whatever matters most to you. [...] Course 1 - Think Again I: How to Understand Arguments Course 2 - Think Again II: How to Reason Deductively Course 3 - Think Again III: How to Reason Inductively Course 4 - Think Again IV: How to Avoid Fallacies Coursera doesn't charge for the courses unless you want an official certificate that you can use for job seeking.

Word!

Hopefully (and if the town has had the services of a credible historian) the town would already have some evidence to back up the claim that Don Rodrigo founded it, when he founded it, and who he was anyway. If that's that case, then wouldn't the person attempting to refute the professed history of the town have the burden of proof to reasonably challenge the previously accepted history of the town? I'm not really challenging your example, just suggesting that the town's burden should already have been established and fulfilled.

Wow! This may or may not be off topic, but Yertle DOES exist. Fictional stories and the characters in them exist. They may not be tangible physical entities, but they exist. The biblical stories in Genesis exist. But whether or not they represent historical fact is, for the most part, irrelevant. They represent the Judeo-Christian creation story, or myth. Myth, as Raf (hopefully) knows, may or may not be true fact. "A creation myth (also called a cosmogonic myth) is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it.[2][3] While in popular usage the term myth often refers to false or fanciful stories, formally, it does not imply falsehood. Cultures generally regard their creation myths as true.[4][5] In the society in which it is told, a creation myth is usually regarded as conveying profound truths, metaphorically, symbolically and sometimes in a historical or literal sense.[6][7] They are commonly, although not always, considered cosmogonical myths – that is, they describe the ordering of the cosmos from a state of chaos or amorphousness." Btw, Dr. Suess's published works aren't nonsense. Many of them are stories which, like Bolshevik indicated, have purpose. Now, to address the issue of whether or not one actually can prove or disprove the existence of the Christian God... that's above my pay grade. I did follow and do appreciate points that Raf made about a Deist god. However, despite my aversion to reducing questions relating to the existence God to the severely limiting confines of human rhetoric, I thought TLC's comments surrounding Romans 8 to be inherently absurd.

Great illustration. I would suggest that this discussion goes along well with a thread where Sherlock Holmes was brought up (by me) to expand on related issues with critical analysis (thinking).

Please, if I'm completely missing your overall point (and therefore the purpose) of your OP for this thread, help me understand. My understanding of the concepts of proof and evidence is that they relate to getting a listener or reader to understand and perhaps believe what you are trying to communicate. Are you suggesting that people who participate in discussions should completely disregard anything that relies solely on anecdotes to prove a point? If you are, may I suggest you're peeing into the wind. That would be because changing human nature based on a logical argument is all but impossible. OTOH, One of the foremost scientists (social psychologist) who has conducted actual academic inquiry on the subject of Influence is Robert Cialdini, author of the seminal book, "Influence," which was first published more than 30 years ago. Dr. Cialdini gave an interview to the NYTimes that was published just last week on YouTube that might shed a bit of light on the subject.

Intriguing insight. I'd go so far as to say that FOR THE MOST PART testimonials are believable because people want to believe them. And the phenomenon is not limited to an "anecdotal vs scientific" dichotomy. It's a human and very social phenomenon that relates to beliefs in any area of human thought, action or interaction. Wierwille used the title "Doctor" because he wanted to appear to be believable. Most of us who come to GSC fell for it (I did). You used the words "stories," "accounts," and "testimonials" several times. Those words are more or less interchangeable. You also used "evidence." noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. 2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever. 3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects. ***** My point simply is that while I get the distinction you're trying to make about scientific inquiry, the topic is much more complex than what you set forth. Scientific evidence may need to be objective, but evidence (and hence "proof" of something or other) often actually is subjective. What I don't get is why you felt compelled to make that point. Your post doesn't seem to indicate your purpose.