Intolerance - a new breed of ex-JW

by LittleToe 260 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Terry

  Yes.

  Terry's deleterious inability to format his posts correctly is clearly a prime cause for the misery of many on this board and deserves all the scorn we can muster.

  Whether the ridicule should be heaped on him personally or merely on his formatting techniques is a matter best left to the philosophers on JWD. Personally, I think he should be dressed as a chicken and fired by circus cannon into Thailand.

  HS PS - .....and Terry, put your damned shirt on man. What is it about XJW men that tempts them to appear by the score in their avatars, cunningly photographed to appear more muscular than they really are? Is this an evolutionary ploy, an American thing, or is it just that many men wander around their offices half naked, hopeful and with all their talents hanging out? Ironically edited for incorrect formatting and hypocritical intolerance.

  I think my post formatting is artistic!

  I am currently dressed as a chicken (a capon) but the only "canon" I've been fired from is the Bible canon!

  The shirtless photo I took for match.com to lure unsuspecting widows with money into contacting me. (p.s. it hasn't worked!)
• 

  Terry

  One day, you are stung by a bee. You are the only human who has ever been stung by a bee. We will assume—for the sake of argument—that you are not highly allergic and will not go into anaphylactic shock due to the experience. You have a small reddened area on your skin, and a tiny little hole that you can really only see if you know exactly where to look.
  

  You have no demonstrable proof of your experience. But it was real, although you are the only one who knows it was real. At this point you have knowledge that is not possessed by any other human. You have learned that (1) bees exist, (2) can sting, (3) the sting hurts badly, and (4) that the sting can produce a red patch on the skin.

  
  I'm so sorry you flunked the analogy! I love analogies.

  
  Your analogy breaks down at the point the person is stung. A bee sting is physical and not emotional. It is the penetration of the actual physical skin by an actual physical stinger from an actual physical insect.

  
  The analogy is bogus because it does not correspond to the "conversion experience" whereby a person hallucinates the sting and the bee. The sting becomes being struck blind on the road to Damascus and the bee becomes Christ, the son of God who has chosen you of all mankind to explain how the scriptures really work. (i.e. Paul)

  
  Try again.
• 

  Terry

  They deserve scorn and ridicule. Why? Because they earn it by the toll of human suffering the cause.

  And so taking this back to my original premise, do you see anyone around here who has so taken such a toll on the levels of suffering experienced by mankind that they deserve scorn and ridicule to be heaped upon them?

  You want me to name names? (Gasp!)
• 

  AuldSoul

  kid-A: Obviously, this sort of experiential testimony does not even approximate tangible evidence.

  Obviously. No more than "I have a splitting headache" is tangible proof of a headache, but it doesn't change the reality that I have a headache. Therefore, I can have clear and compelling evidence of something that is not tangibly provable. Insistence on tangible evidence for all reality is, in my opinion, a higher standard than can be justified by reason and logic. However, my statement that "I have a splitting headache" should not compel belief in others that my statement is true.

  I have never met AudeSapere in person. She claims to have broken her knee and ankle. Did she? I have no tangible evidence, but I believe her even without her making the trip to Georgia to show me. Does that make me a schmuck? I don't think so.

  I think we all hold provisional beliefs for which we have no tangible proof. To a greater or lesser degree, the strength of these beliefs are directly influenced by our experiences. Experience is personal evidence that is often not demonstrable evidence.

  For instance, if I have been taken advantage of by several scam artists who have lyingly claimed to be infirm, I may not credit AudeSapere's report with much validity. I may, in fact, not believe her. Without any reason for my disbelief beyond prior personal experience. Would that make my reasoning flawed? No. Because of this, I do not have a problem with anyone who chooses not to believe in God or who chooses to hold belief in abeyance for whatever reason.

  But, neither would my reasoning be flawed if I have had many rewarding experiences caring for deeply appreciative infirm persons, and choose to believe AudeSapere based on these experiences. Because of that, I also have no problem with those who choose to believe in God or chooses to proclaim their belief in God to others.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  Sad emo

  Too many times in the past I have wound believers up and been accused of proseltysing for athiesm. I've been accused of intolerance and a lack of respect and all I've ever done is post honestly and, I believe, fairly.

  nicolau

  I don't think you're intolerant or disrespectful of people's beliefs. What I have found (from one of your threads I replied to and followed) is that you may sometimes ask for examples of religious experiences, people have given them and then you put your thoughts/conclusions which read like you never even read the replies given. Maybe that might be what others mean when accusing you of the above.

  -------------------------------

  I'd define intolerance as being when someone makes a blatant statement that my beliefs or whatever is a load of rubbish. That's as may be, but I have to work that out for myself. To be TOLD it is like getting the answer to a sum without doing the working out part. How do I know I've been given the right answer? From all perspectives that are within this board, we should be able to help each other to draw our own conclusions and they might not be the same for everyone. That's good.

  Truth is relative!
• 

  AuldSoul

  Terry: I'm so sorry you flunked the analogy!

  That's the same ignorant response you gave last time. The analogy doesn't break down, because as far as anyone else knows, the experience was a hallucination. Hallucinations can cause physical reactions, true or false? Hypnotists can create a cigarette burn with the point of a pencil on a subjects skin, true or false?

  That is, in fact, the whole POINT of the analogy, the bringing into personal knowledge and personal body of evidence the actual existence of something no one else knows about. Having personal proof without demonstrable evidence.

  The point at which you failed to properly analyze the analogy was the point at which you tried to make it real, try that with the Allegory of the Cave and it fails in seconds. In doing so, you rejected the parameters established at the outset. Only one person knew that bees were real and that they sting. How do they relate the experience to others? (<--- the POINT of the thought exercise, which you decided to ignore)

  Try again! (BTW, I haven't damaged anyone to my knowledge. Do I deserve scorn, and if so, why?)

  AuldSoul
• 

  Terry

  Obviously. No more than "I have a splitting headache" is tangible proof of a headache, but it doesn't change the reality that I have a headache. Therefore, I can have clear and compelling evidence of something that is not tangibly provable. Insistence on tangible evidence for all reality is, in my opinion, a higher standard than can be justified by reason and logic. However, my statement that "I have a splitting headache" should not compel belief in others that my statement is true

  Flunk!

  Religious orthodoxies aren't built on headaches.

  I hesitate to mention this to you because I like you and it might come out wrong. You might think I'm picking on you; I'm not.

  But, you are absolutely smitten by personal experience as being equivalent ot valid proof because you are a MYSTIC! You are locked in to a one to one with your God idea and can't really see how it is for the rest of us out here.

  It would be like you falling hard for a gorgeous blonde and telling all of us how beautiful and wonderful she is and when we look to corroborate your opinion all we find is that you have an imaginary friend and a jar of K-Y!!

  Reality exists for everybody; not just you.

  We are all entitled to our own opinions, but; we are not entitled to our own facts.
• 

  Terry

  What is intolerance?

  To me it means you are unwilling to be wrong yourself and change your opinion when confronted with falsifying evidence.

  Intolerance fights when it should listen.

  Facts become facts when everybody has access to them and can measure them by the same standards.

  Fictions are what you may find "obvious" but, everybody else finds invisible.
• 

  AuldSoul

  Terry: But, you are absolutely smitten by personal experience as being equivalent to valid proof.

  Personal experience is personal proof. It is not and never can be demonstrable proof. A headache is a very good example of something we experience but do not feel compelled to prove. Despite how you would like reality to work, not every experience is provable nor must it be. The person who has the experience must be the ONLY judge of whether the experience compels belief.

  I know you so very much wish yourself to be right. Because if by any chance it can be proven to you that it is possible for an individual to have independent proof of facts that are not obtainable by everyone else and are not demonstrable, you have to also admit the possibility that you are wrong about mystics. Perish the thought, right?

  That is why you refuse to stay within the parameters of the thought exercise I presented. It isn't because of your incapacity to comprehend it. It isn't because the analogy is flawed. The analogy is not intended to prove the existence of God, it is intended to establish the FACT that it is possible for one person to possess personal proof that another person has no access to, i.e. evidence which is not demonstrable.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  Robdar

  But, you are absolutely smitten by personal experience as being equivalent ot valid proof because you are a MYSTIC! You are locked in to a one to one with your God idea and can't really see how it is for the rest of us out here.

  Really, Terry. What's it to you? Why does it bother you so? The last sentence above is almost an us v. them mentality. Do you feel that you are lacking something that others may have? So what if your reality doesn't include a one on one with God. So what if AuldSoul's does. It really doesn't have much to do with the price of cheese in China. Why waste all your energy? For you not to be a believer, you sure do think a lot about it.