A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

by palmtree67 699 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sizemik

  You are simply conflating two separate ideas. One of a multibillion dollar corporation with a long history of mind control and the other an internet poster with an opinion. . . . sab

  I disagree. Same idea, different context. All ideas can be persuasive and influence others . . . and any idea with merit will stand up well to scrutiny.

  My first encounter with JW's was one person at my door with an opinion.

  If I had scrutinised more carefully . . . I wouldn't even be here. Isn't that a nice thought.
• 

  sabastious

  I disagree. Same idea, different context. All ideas can be persuasive and influence others . . . and any idea with merit will stand up well to scrutiny.

  Yes, scrutiny is important, but you have missed my point about how far people on this forum take that scrutiny. To the point that this forum presents itself as not a great enviroment for believers. This is counterintuitive because most people who come out of the Watchtower have a believing base, but will not be willing to discuss it with just anybody. Just because someone chooses to express themselves doesn't automatically make them an expert in what they are saying. However when people are expressing belief, it should be respected as a belief of a human being. It shouldn't matter how ridiculous. The Watchtower is a COMPLETELY different animal, Size. I fear you are just taking the technicality instead of seeing the principles I am trying to bring to the forefront. The Watchtower is provably dangerous and their leaders are convicted criminals and are internationally prosecuted. To put ANYONE on this forum on par with the Watchtower really is a false comparison. Yes there are technical commonalities, but they serve as misleading details and a distraction to the malice of high control groups in general.

  -Sab
• 

  Lozhasleft

  Sab, sometimes I just love it when you climb up on your horse and come charging in. Impressive.

  Loz x
• 

  sizemik

  I fear you are just taking the technicality instead of seeing the principles I am trying to bring to the forefront. . . . sab

  I felt the same thing . . . but the other way round. False belief is not something anybody feels grateful for when it is revealed . . . regardless of how big or damaging the organisation is. Seldom do we even recognise the price until pay-up time (as in WT). I have no problem with personal belief, and I'm sure the holder feels it is on solid ground. But when it is displayed through a public medium it is simply being recommended by preaching. Scrutiny under those circumstances is right and proper.

  The issue is not believer/non-believer . . . but behaviour. The same rules for debate apply regardless of the subject . . . and scrutiny is the dominant feature of it. Attack the message not the messenger. Not complicated.

  See . . . you and I have had an exchange of ideas. I'm not cold. I feel emotion just as you do. But the exchange can still take place . . . and hopefully, through being respectful, we each have the opportunity to disagree and present our point of view . . . even for the purpose of vigorous scrutiny. Hopefully we both get to learn something new. Little would be achieved otherwise. We're simply not all playing in the same orchestra.
• 

  sabastious

  I felt the same thing . . . but the other way round. False belief is not something anybody feels grateful for when it is revealed . . . regardless of how big or damaging the organisation is. Seldom do we even recognise the price until pay-up time (as in WT). I have no problem with personal belief, and I'm sure the holder feels it is on solid ground. But when it is displayed through a public medium it is simply being recommended by preaching. Scrutiny under those circumstances is right and proper.

  I totally agree that strong scrutiny is right and proper. If someone wants to believe that the loch ness monster exists then it doesn't really bother me. Chances are that their whole case is tied up in a few articles of faith and I don't have a problem with faith. Whether that be faith in exterrestrial life, government or global conspriaces or secret occult societies or whatever it may be. However therein lies the problem which is that some know and some do not. I do wonder how people in this day and age can assert that the universe and earth were created in 6 literal earth days. Is it a problem that they are not willing to understand the basics of cosmology, abiogenesis and evolutionary biology? Is it simply that these sciences are beyond their personal capacity of comprehension? If so, then how can you expect them to do anything else but fight to the bitter end? Or simply be indifferent towards science in general?

  The issue is not believer/non-believer . . . but behaviour. The same rules for debate apply regardless of the subject . . . and scrutiny is the dominant feature of it. Attack the message not the messenger. Not complicated.
  
  See . . . you and I have had an exchange of ideas. I'm not cold. I feel emotion just as you do. But the exchange can still take place . . . and hopefully, through being respectful, we each have the opportunity to disagree and present our point of view . . . even for the purpose of vigorous scrutiny. Hopefully we both get to learn something new. Little would be achieved otherwise. We're simply not all playing in the same orchestra.

  I agree that it's an issue of behavior, but that's precisely my point to begin with. That the non believers of JWN have more bad behavior than the believers. There is so much content if you want to get into the anti-Science vien of the internet. But do you see believers making discussion topics about how flawed or dangerous science is? I personally made a thread that was designed to respectfully applaud science. Most believers I have seen here are completely behind science as in a methodology. Even the rationalists will admit that the method is falsely used to come to predisposed conclusions. The believers concede that doing this is effectively fraudulent science.

  Yet, the believers can say the same thing about fraudulent spirituality in the reverse argument. You can run on the "preacher scam" people all day and have a solid point on shysters, but a weak overall point on believers. The crazy preacher type is a dying breed and the secular community would do well to understand that. Yes, there are still radicals on the internet, but they are overwhelmed by a moderate and tolerant community of peaceful people. People that can bitterly disagree, but still raise a drink to each other in honor of what it means to be free of mind and free of soul.

  Sab, sometimes I just love it when you climb up on your horse and come charging in. Impressive.

  

  -Sab
• 

  palmtree67

  Well, I am off line for the next while now......**waits for certain ones to quit partying before continuing**

  I hope this thread will not get sabotaged.

  My fervent wish for it now is that the Monkey will start posting on it and it will degenerate into a fun-fest filled with random pictures and gifs, arguments over the best scotch, several more invocations of Cofty's Law and at least four recommendations from the old posters to read Crisis of Conscience and/or Combatting Cult Mind Control.

  I love you all (admittedly some more than others) and I wouldn't have this forum any other way.

  Love and Peace, (I only say it when I mean it)

  Palm
• 

  sizemik

  We have more to agree on than disagree sab . . .

  Even the rationalists will admit that the method is falsely used to come to predisposed conclusions. The believers concede that doing this is effectively fraudulent science. . . . sab

  Shysters appear in all disciplines and walks of life. It can be argued that this is not "science" but fraud. Same goes for a lot of religions as well. It is really the responsibility of the individual. "Piltdown man" doesn't invalidate science anymore than "the Shroud of Turin" invalidates Christianity.

  If you rely on fraudulent science, you have the same problem as with relying on fraudulent religious doctrine. The difference with science is that the fraudulent is often revealed by the scientific method itself, in a self-correcting manner. That is often why theory (which is most often conclusive science) gains status as fact over time. If it didn't do that then the fraudulent would remain undetected.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Now, see, I thought this particular interchange (re a truce) was about me... and you. Was it NOT?

  Not in particular, no.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Man, this thread *almost* made out of the gutter. Instead, we get the same old stuff.

  
• 

  still thinking

  Is the dislike of the person attached to the belief? And is there really a dislike for the person at all...or is it really the belief and method of dispensation that may be disliked? And when it really comes down to it....would anyone care about the person if they didn't dislike the ideas and beliefs the person is sharing? So, what is really being disliked? The person...or the belief? And what is really being discussed? The person? Or the belief?....still thinking

  The same argument could be made about ethnicity. You don't hate the person, only their genetic predispositions. Many rationalists operate on the false assumption that believers can be anything other than believers. They will often use themselves as evidence that people DO deconvert from believing, but then again they cannot prove that they can be anything else besides a non believer. This is a matter of stereotyping and prejudice. The personal attacks are justified because a stereotype is confirmed. People who insist they are logical are impossible to correct....sab

  I really don't know why you are bringing ethnicity into that except for a reaction and shock effect.

  Belief in a god is not a genetic predisposition. And I think is was very emotive of you to try to compare the two.

  Yes, we do operate on the assumption belief IS a choice. Many believers have stopped believing. And so have proven it is a choice to believe or not.

  It is not a stereotype of predudice even though you appear to be trying to make it one. Sometimes some of the things you say really repulse me sab. And I have to say this particular argument of yours is one of those things. I have not said personal attacks are ok. I have said when people believe they are being personally attacked it is not always so. Because they cannot seperate their belief from themselves. Attack the belief...attack them...in their minds. Don't like their belief...don't like them...in their minds. I'm not talking about blatant personal comments like...you're an alcoholic, or fat etc....those are personal. I'm talking about belief.

  You can dislike an opinion and not dislike the poster. I have never disliked you sab....but I do find some of what you write distasteful.