I'm not sure about Scientologists, but I"m pretty sure we're seeing the last generation of Jehovah's Witnesses. It's just hard to say how many times that generation will overlap.
Posts by DT
-
12Are we living with the last generation of Scientologists?
by Gayle inhttp://www.thevine.com.au/news/current-affairs/know-this-tv-binging,-immaterial-products,-scientology's-end,-italian-tears,-the-kickstarter-scam20120122.aspx.
are we living with the last generation of scientologists?
over the past decade, membership has dropped in the us by 20,000. in an article for lrb titled "religion, grrrr" rachel aviv reviews one of the only academic studies of scientology to date.
-
-
-
6
Thinking Without Words
by DT inis it possible to think without words?.
i've heard many people claim that it's not possible.
recently another thread about evolution was sidetracked by this question.. i personally spend a lot of time thinking without words.
-
-
DT
Is it possible to think without words?
I've heard many people claim that it's not possible. Recently another thread about evolution was sidetracked by this question.
I personally spend a lot of time thinking without words. I don't feel much of a need to defend this assertion. Instead, I would like to get some feedback on how many other people engage in nonverbal thinking. I also welcome the comments of those who claim that thought without words is impossible. I'm particularly interested in whether that claim is based on a different perception of the word "thinking", or if it is influenced by some people finding that nonverbal thought is difficult, uncomfortable or even impossible.
I welcome your comments.
-
384
Atheism 2.0
by Qcmbr inapologies if this has been posted before or even discussed.. this ted talk gets at the heart of what atheism is missing and my wife an di discussed this for a long time last night.
in short religion provides a framework for meeting, for ritual, for art, education and sociality.
without this framework atheism can seem lonely harsh and certainly disorganised (the general idea that education and culture can replace the gap may well be true but without a formal structure the route to personal mental fulfillment is somewhat piecemeal and patchwork.
-
-
DT
I wanted to respond to some of Terry's comments about the alleged impossibility of thinking without words. Some may want to skip this because it not too relevant to the main topic at hand. Maybe we should start a new thread.
"Brain attentiveness to perception is what you are describing."
No, my comments were about active listening, not just the passive collection of sensory input. I would describe the active process of analyzing music, forming expectations and comparing musical patterns with previous patterns as a type of thinking. This type of thinking doesn't have to make use of words.
"Notice the word PROCESS. Thought process. If you go into a frankfurter factory you can observe the ingredents going into the hopper followed by the process.....ending up as the individual frank or hot dog. Don't confuse the process with the hot dog.
Thinking,(as I am using the term) is a From---To---process resulting in a conclusion and a conceptual grasp of implied or imputed meaning. Language labels the hot dog as it is---after the process."
I'm not sure I fully understand your use of the word "thinking". It may be that your assertion that we can't think without words is based on certain definitions of those words that would make that statement seem reasonable. If you want to start another thread, I would be pleased to try to understand where you are coming from and offer my response. If not, I might start a thread on the subject, but I probably won't have time today.
You say that "Language labels the hot dog--after the process." I agree with what I think you are saying. Language and the thought process are two different things. Although language might be involved in the thought process, it might only come later to describe the result. Therefore it is possible for the thought process to not involve words. I don't dispute the value of words. I'm just pointing out that thoughts and thinking can take place without them.
"In your (above) description you are using WORDS to describe a....non-verbal....ineffable process.
Ask yourself why you must resort to WORDS to get your "thoughts" across to us."
There are a number of other ways that could be used such as body language, drawings etc. In any case, my point related to the possibility of thinking without words. The problem of communicating those thoughts is another matter entirely.
-
384
Atheism 2.0
by Qcmbr inapologies if this has been posted before or even discussed.. this ted talk gets at the heart of what atheism is missing and my wife an di discussed this for a long time last night.
in short religion provides a framework for meeting, for ritual, for art, education and sociality.
without this framework atheism can seem lonely harsh and certainly disorganised (the general idea that education and culture can replace the gap may well be true but without a formal structure the route to personal mental fulfillment is somewhat piecemeal and patchwork.
-
-
DT
"DT couldn't thinking without words be called meditation, right? Listening/focusing to music without words would be considerered thinking without words."
I think listening to music is a great example of how thought can take place without words. It is common to anticipate how a musical phrase will resolve and then experience some kind of emotional reaction based on how your expectations are confirmed or denied. This involves advanced information processing without the direct involvement of language. Sure, there are words to describe some of these processes, but even someone who is ignorant of the terminology is still capable of having these thought processes.
-
384
Atheism 2.0
by Qcmbr inapologies if this has been posted before or even discussed.. this ted talk gets at the heart of what atheism is missing and my wife an di discussed this for a long time last night.
in short religion provides a framework for meeting, for ritual, for art, education and sociality.
without this framework atheism can seem lonely harsh and certainly disorganised (the general idea that education and culture can replace the gap may well be true but without a formal structure the route to personal mental fulfillment is somewhat piecemeal and patchwork.
-
-
DT
"When you are talking to yourself you ALWAYS use language."
Yes, but talking to yourself is only one form of thought. I'm constantly amazed when people assert that it is not possible to think without words. It sounds like a joke to me, but I've heard it said often enough that I have to conclude that at least some of these people are serious. I can only assert that I can think without words. I'm not talking about about just feelings or sensory impressions, but actual complex thoughts that are manipulated in my mind in a visual way rather than by means of language.
I have to remind myself that many people find it difficult or impossible to think without words. Therefore, they may have a very different impression of the words themselves. I can see both advantages and disadvantages to this way of thinking. I'm sure it contributes to a greater ability to use words effectively, but I can see a danger of mistaking words, as a symbol for thoughts, with the thoughts themselves. Perhaps, this contributes to heated arguments that could be avoided by paying closer to the words as symbols that vary based on context and the minds of the people who use them.
-
14
Pondering A "What If" Ultimatum
by OnTheWayOut inokay, i will tailor this to my circumstances, but it's really a general "what if" question on how you think most jw's would react.. so, i am a fader.
100% inactive, but never been called to a jc.
so what if i bring home a huge lottery winning?
-
-
DT
When I was still in, I used to ask other Witnesses what they would do if they found a wining lottery ticket and couldn't find the rightful owner. Most said it would be wrong to cash it in. I said that not cashing it in would be the same as donating that amount of money to the lottery and that my conscience wouldn't permit me to do this. They couldn't argue with my logic, but I could tell that the question made them very uncomfortable.
-
8
Class Action Slander/Libel Suit Against the WTS
by Igot2bme ini am exploring a class action lawsuit against the wts at the moment.
i have been in touch with other attorneys on this matter and at the moment i haven't found anyone to take the case just yet.
i want to pursue a class action lawsuit against the wts.
-
-
DT
I wish you luck. I don't personally see a way of making this work, but I don't see any harm in getting some legal advice. I look forward to hearing what you find out.
-
14
Religious Freedom Compared to Economic Freedom
by DT insuppose a small group of people in the united states decide that they want to start a religion.
does united states law and the constitution give them this right?
after thinking about it, i'm not so sure.. they can certainly meet and talk about the bible or religion.
-
-
DT
Thank you for all your comments.
I agree that the specific Supreme Court case was limited in scope. Many have drawn conclusions from that case that aren't warranted. It may also be true that some of my concerns are exaggerated.
However, there are other precedents and a general reluctance for the courts to interfere in any matter that is related to religion, even when other human rights, including personal religious liberties, are at stake. I would also like to point at that if a court refuses to intervene in a religious matter, then any other laws or contractual considerations that might have affected the result become meaningless.
When it comes to contracts, or even verbal agreements, that relate to internal religious matters, it is difficult to say how this would be handled in a legal dispute. It's certainly possible that a court might intervene, however it could be extremely difficult to reconcile this judicial involvement with a court's refusal to intervene in other religious matters that may be just as important. It's also quite possible that a court would refuse to hear the case or arbitrarily declare any of the laws that might relate to the case as being unenforceable in a religious setting. If this same level of uncertainty existed for business transactions, then it would be nearly impossible to get anything done.
The way I see it, I can't join a religion without sacrificing my other rights. Even if I agree with the rules and governing structure of the religion, I should accept the fact that these could change at any time or the religion might just choose to ignore its own rules. In this case, I would likely have no legal recourse if this results in unjust treatment of me. Although I might have some legal protections in a religious setting, I might not be able to predict which laws can be enforced.
If I wanted to start a religion with others who want to preserve human rights and dignity in a religious setting, it's not clear how or if this can be done. We could have written agreements about how the church should operate, but if these were ever overruled and changed by an internal faction, it would be hard to have confidence that there would be a legal recourse to prevent the changes. There might be a legal remedy, but the uncertainty could be enough to prevent the project from ever getting started.
-
14
Religious Freedom Compared to Economic Freedom
by DT insuppose a small group of people in the united states decide that they want to start a religion.
does united states law and the constitution give them this right?
after thinking about it, i'm not so sure.. they can certainly meet and talk about the bible or religion.
-
-
DT
Suppose a small group of people in the United States decide that they want to start a religion. Does United States law and the constitution give them this right? After thinking about it, I'm not so sure.
They can certainly meet and talk about the Bible or religion. However, in theory, they should be able to set up some kind of organization to advance their religious goals and beliefs. They could sign agreements about how they want to run things and split the expenses. However, if they are smart, they might realize that this would provide little protection for their investment of time and money. Someone could run off with the money or one member could declare himself leader, expel anyone who doesn't agree with him and use the money to form his own cult.
If something like that happened, what could they do? In view of certain legal precedents and the recent Supreme Court case about freedom of religion, they probably couldn't do anything legally. Judges are generally unwilling to interfere in internal religious matters.
Of course, an established religion usually has all sorts of policies, procedures and traditions that help it remain somewhat stable. It acts like a little government and is generally happy that the Federal government is reluctant to interfere in its operations.
A new religion is an entirely different situation. The founders might sign agreements about how the rights and investments of its members will be protected, but they likely won't be able to count on any court to enforce those agreements. If an internal threat arose they would likely have to resort to some kind of intimidation (shunning, slander, etc.) to control it. Some of these methods might be illegal in other settings, but it's unlikely the courts would interfere.
Imagine if this same situation applied to a group who wanted to start a business. It would be chaos. Thankfully, the government gives people a right to enter into legally binding contracts in a business setting and seek help from the courts when their economic rights are violated.
It's strange that the same rights don't exist for those who want to advance their religious goals. It's not just a matter of established religions violating the rights of individuals. It's also a matter of collections of individuals being unable to attain certain types of collective religious expression and organization.
While it is almost impossible for a group of individuals to set up a meaningful religious structure that respects the rights of its members in this legal climate, cults and high control groups are able to flourish. They are able to police themselves effectively while not having to worry too much about individual rights.
Although I think government interferes too much in business at times, some level of supervision is necessary so that individuals can work together while protecting their personal rights and economic interests. It's too bad that there isn't a similar mechanism to protect individual rights when people seek their religious or spiritual goals.
-
20
Court: Judges cannot get involved in Church Disputes
by Iamallcool inhttp://news.yahoo.com/court-judges-cannot-involved-church-dispute-152559467.html.
-
-
DT
"DT
Theft isn't a religious function, nor for that matter a civil court case. I don't know of anything, including this court case, that prevents a church from filing a police complaint against a thief."
I think there could be a lot of gray areas. Suppose a church employee takes a certain amount of money every day for "personal expenses". He is fired and sued for the amount of money taken. It seems to me that the court would have to examine internal religious policies in order to determine if he was entitled to that money or not. It also seems that a judge could just claim that he can't do that. Suppose that the employee mentions a church policy that states that someone in his position is entitled to be reimbursed for some personal expenses. A judge would have to examine that church policy and make a decision on the interpretation of that policy. Even if that policy obviously has nothing to do with the case in question, it is still something that would have to be reviewed by a judge in order for a lawsuit to proceed. It would be easy for a judge to say that he can't get involved.
The church could pressure the person to return the money, perhaps using intimidation tactics that would be illegal if done by a regular business, but they might have limited legal options.
I'm just trying to point out that this type of situation could easily work for or against an organised religion. It's usually the members that are prevented from using the court system to seek justice, but there could be situations when a religion is denied the ability to protect its basic rights. If this happens, can it really be said that this country has any type of freedom of religion?