Is it just me or has this site become a Believer/Atheist warzone?

by BU2B 288 Replies latest jw friends

  • adamah

    Cofty said- Objecting to foolish assertions that a person's opinions have just been spoken by the almighty is not ad hominem.

    We've covered that recently in another thread: it's a variety of ad hominem (circumstantial). I remember you even posted the info that indicated the countering the claim (which relies on an appeal to Divine Authority) may reduce the evidenciary value of whatever argument she's trying to us it to support, but that should be obvious: there's MILLIONS of people who claim to hear God, Jesus, Allah, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc, and they're usually standing on street corners or in sporting events holding signs (John 3:14, or whatever it is they cite).

    BTW, you also jumped the gun in that other thread, since she hadn't even stated her goading claim yet (AKA a false start).

    Regardless, a hot-headed authoritarian response only side-tracks the thread(s), since the topic IMMEDIATELY jumps to TEC: that one's been done to death.

    BOTR asked- What can one say to a claim of auditory hallucinations?

    All it takes is for one person to counter by calmly explaining to lurkers that TEC seemingly is experiencing the relatively-common phenomena of 'auditory hallucinations' (maybe give a link to if you want to educate readers and back up your claim), and she's had it checked out by a doctor who's ruled out schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, brain tumors, etc, and she's A-OK. Most people in the general public do not know that it's not unusual for normal people to experience auditory hallucinations, and up to 10% of the population will experience them in their lifetimes (and some of those people DO have mental illness, but there's many people who live a productive happy life where their voices don't interfere: it's a brain-wiring issue, where they have the inability to discern that the source is coming from inside their own head, not an external source).

    Then move on to the actual argument(s) TEC presents, just like we would with any other poster, trying to climb as high on the pyramid as we're able:

    Cofty said- How about reasonable intelligent believers? People like Jgnat who started an excellent thread a few days ago that still hasn't been fully explored.

    Surely there are others who would want to argue for deism or process theology or open theism or panentheism? How about somebody who would like to defend the liberal position of theologians like John Shelby Spong? People who are wrestling with the big questions and still see value in what faith traditions have to say about them. Wouldn't it be interesting to have challenging conversations like that?

    Yeah, sure.

    The problem is this site has people who are struggling with recognizing basic logical fallacies (i.e. what circular arguments are, etc), and the average reader wouldn't likely BE in the JWs right now if they had been able to recognize what deceptive methods the WT uses, or the insidious elements and subtle methods of social control they exert on their members.

    I think of my neices and nephews in the JWs, and try to write stuff to their level of understanding: they're NOT concerned in the least with who John Shelby Spong is, as 99% of other readers aren't (heck, I could give a rats pattootie about who he is, since like you, I tend to be bored with theological wiffle-waffle and/or philosophical navel-gazing, LOL! A little goes a LONG way).

    Cofty said- Instead we get the same old sophomoric, "my lord says come... blah blah" and your walls of self-indulgent text that add fuel to the fire.

    You seemingly forgot about YOUR brusque curt one-liner dismissals of others?

    That's even MORE self-indulgent, since you apparently don't feel the need to back up your argument with supportive evidence, relying on your never-gets-old 'appeal to authority' (which ironicially is the same fallacy which you protest in TEC, since she's using the 'appeal to Divine authority).

    Anyway, what better way to protect these unknown lurkers that you're so concerned about protecting from getting swept into another cult, than to calmly and easily counter TEC's claims right here? Or do you think that JWs who are vulnerable and looking for answers WON'T encounter TECs on the street, or in real-life?

    See, TECs not the problem, but only a symptom of the problem.


  • cofty

    You seemingly forgot about YOUR brusque curt one-liner dismissals of others?

    Yeah whatever.

  • EdenOne

    It's not my habit nor my job to defend Tec, but this is too obvious:

    Nicolaou: You are a fraud and a liar.

    Since you were so keen on bringing up the "Posting Guidelines", here's back to you:
    Posting Guidelines

    To ensure all users feel safe and keen to participate, please avoid:

    1. Insulting, threatening or provoking language.

    As irritating as Tec's posts may seem to you, there's an option that doesn't have a button in this forum: Step away for a moment and say nothing. Come back when you have a cold head.

    And, by the way, you said:

    This site exists primarily to help Jehovah's Witnesses recover from a damaging cult, a nasty little, high-control group.

    While we all know that many who choose to leave the JW's do indeed need recovering from the cult damage that was inflicted to them, are you now calling the shots on this site, and setting its goals? There are other websites designed specifically for that purpose, and some of their promoters are regular contributers here. Thanks to Simon, this site appears to be a plural, open forum where everyone gets to have a voice - voices like yours, mine, Cofty's and Tammy's and SFPW's. Please don't turn it into a forum of intolerance just because believers piss you off.


  • yadda yadda 2
    yadda yadda 2

    I tend to agree with the opening post. Simon should create a new board on here for atheism v creation debates, and another for debating the truthfulness of the Bible.

  • nicolaou

    Eden: I have recently criticised another poster for 'calling the shots' on what this forum is for. If you're now levelling that charge at me I can only put my hands up and say 'Fair enough, you got me'. Thanks for pulling me up.

    However on my accusations against Tammy I will not retract. She fraudulently misrepresents herself and tells the most outrageous lies for . . . . what purpose?

    Yes, this is "a plural, open forum where everyone gets to have a voice" and please note I've said I do NOT want her banned. Even the most lunatic of voices should not be silenced for the loon MAY be right. But Tammy's voice is like a bullhorn in the threads she takes part in, drowning out reasoned discussion and distracting any new participants.

    We've had this with other posters in the past . . .

  • Witness My Fury
    Witness My Fury

    If one person grabs a loud hailer (bull horn) and appears to have an unfair advantage, then a solution could be to all use one.

    If every poster used the cliched phrases "My Lord told me" or "My Lord wants you to know"... etc etc then Tammy will no longer have the upper hand,... it will also see a drastic reduction on the number of newbies signing up here as they run screaming back to "mother WTS" seeing how mad all the apostates are.

    Let's all use it every time Tammy does and see how she likes it. I'd love to see Cofty in action using this technique LOL.

    let the shouting commence, as my Lord told me so:

  • Witness My Fury
    Witness My Fury

    I will be using the term "My Lard" instead of Lord though just in case Tammy gets off on others using the term Lord thinking that it somehow brings him any praise....

  • Laika

    I just got off the phone to my lord. He asked 'why can't we all just get along?'

  • Witness My Fury
    Witness My Fury

    Did he call collect?

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    "My Lord" cuts off debate. Other cannot participate in a rational way. There is no way to refute voices in the head. Let me be honest. Such assertions trigger my irrational fear of demons. We were taught that such hallucinations were demonic. It makes the board less safe. Born-again Christians do not trigger such fear. Yes, my bias shows. I acknowledge it. Anyone who thinks they hear voices from a deity should be seen in the emergency room. There is never a discussion with Tammy or others. The response is always I know more than anyone else b/c I hear voices. Exiting JWs must fear such voices. I love being anchored in reality. During the 1960s, plenty of people took LSD for a psychic break. A psychic break terrifies me. Having one's wits is a good thing.

    We also don't need you telling us how to respond to people. This is not a philosphy class. Overall, this forum is instructive and often fun. I learn a lot from what others post. I, too, am impressed with Jgnat's thread. It is a bit challenging b/c I have not read the authors referenced in the thread. Now I have extra reading to do. It is the antithesis of "MY LORD told me." People are participating. Altho the politicla threads can become heated, it is instructive to hear how others think about current events. I don't agree with the birthers but the posts fascinate me. This site could never retain people if there were only atheist/believer threads. I object to the term believers when it is not in quotes. As a progressive Christian, I have faith. I view the Bible with respect. A believer need not believe the Bible as inerrant truth. Bible stories can be viewed loosely. I view church as a community seeking answers to the same questions. It need not be a community of blind followers.

    There is something I can't articulate about voice hearers. These are not reasonable beliefs. There can be no discussion. One cannot even resort to scriptural analysis b/c they don't accept the Bible. The voices have supremacy. Scholarship is viewed as an evil. Sorry -- this is just another version of the Witnesses. Blind faith is blind faith. If I were raised in a cosmoplitan household, my reaction would not be revulsion. I don't find it amusing. Excuse me but my fears of the JW are triggered. I note that they never explain how to hear the voices, too. It strikes me as exclusive and a destroyer of true community.

    Others here can respond to TEC. When I respond, I only give her a platform to air her views. I am not the only who feels they are a threat.

    Oh, I do read John Spong. I am interested in theology. I've also read Paul Tillich and Hans Kung. Niebuhr, too. Their ideas are important to me. It would be nice, however, if they were more readable. I am a voracious reader yet trying to understand their views gives me headaches. The academic work on Bible history freed me. The Witnesses messed with my mind and emotions. It seems I am addicted to overcoming it. One of my goals in retirement is to study systematic theology.

Share this