Lol @ oubliette, datadog.
enzos writing allmost rival a certain science fiction writer in akadademik kvaliti. I think his name was Hubba or somesuch.
Posts by bohm
-
144Have you ever read the review of Steven Hassan's books on Cult news.com?
by Enzo inhi, to everyone my username is enzo, .
recently a saw a video presented by john cedar presenting steve hassan as a cult expert.. .
but read this reviews presented on cult news about steve hassan's books, and it's up to you make your own opinion about the video.
-
-
-
144
Have you ever read the review of Steven Hassan's books on Cult news.com?
by Enzo inhi, to everyone my username is enzo, .
recently a saw a video presented by john cedar presenting steve hassan as a cult expert.. .
but read this reviews presented on cult news about steve hassan's books, and it's up to you make your own opinion about the video.
-
-
bohm
Enzo: And by the way Bohm, I have study, and I am trained in Psychology, and I am proud of it.
Is that why you respond to every critical point by a personal attack? BTW, you have given absolutely NO reason to suspect you have a degree of any sorts. Quite frankly I find it amazing you would be able to make it through a university program in europe with such a poor grasp of english.
in Europe and other Countries where we live in a Democracy, we have a free expression..to debate,
no fucking shit!
Thus if you can accept another vision, or criticism, than you have a problem, and your behaviour contradicts your BITE model (see information control)
I think the reason may be because I am very stressed..perhaps because some alien ghosts are clinging to my soul or somesuch.. do you know some way this can be tested?
-
15
pioneer book
by itisme indoes anyone have the pioneer book?
the new one: fully accomplish your ministry.
.
-
-
bohm
itisme: I would strongly recommend you to hide your picture on this site as elders or active jehovahs witnesses sometimes try and find "apostates" who post here. To hide your picture, please go to https://en.gravatar.com/, log in and make the appropriate changes. Otherwise start a new topic titled: "MODS: My real picture is showing in my profile, please help" and it will likely be changed soon.
-
20
JW stand on Philosophy is inexcusable!
by Pinku inpaul knew that torah with all its rituals and sacrifices did not originate with god (jeremiah 7:22; 8:8), hence he warned christians to guard against deceptive philosophy that would take them back to torah.
(colossians 2:8 compare 2:11, 16, 17) in view of the over-all view of the bible, there is no excuse to use the word philosophy with any negative connotation.
jws built their stand on philosophy based on this wrong (negative) use of the word philosophy found in colossians 2:8.. the greek word philosophi a means love of wisdom.
-
-
bohm
Spot on Magnum!
The mindset of philosophy (all arguments should be examined, that even bad arguments can often be resurrected, that very little can really be "known", that one should allways ask questions and be critical of ones definitions and assumptions to a perverse degree) is arguably even more alien to the WT mindset than that in science where there is at least agreement that some things are true.
As a speculation, in addition to this at the time where the WT developed most of it's "phobias" to various fields of learning (early 20th century) there was Bertrand Russell, a first-rate communicator and philosopher, giving fundamentalist religion a very unkind treatment. "OMG demunz!" was properly the best response the WT could muster at that time.
-
144
Have you ever read the review of Steven Hassan's books on Cult news.com?
by Enzo inhi, to everyone my username is enzo, .
recently a saw a video presented by john cedar presenting steve hassan as a cult expert.. .
but read this reviews presented on cult news about steve hassan's books, and it's up to you make your own opinion about the video.
-
-
bohm
Enzo: But I would advice to go to a recognized psychologist, and follow an intense therapy, and don't let pseudo science manipulate you in accepting ideas that are not accepted iby scholars in the psychiatric community..
Here is the problem. How do you arrive at the conclusion that this is "pseudo science" that "manipulate" the many people on this thread? What is your evidence? Is it because it is rejected by a vast majority of other researchers it is pseudo science? In which case how do you establish this majority?
The reason people here look positively on the BITE model is because it very accurately reflected their own issues with the JW -- i.e. Steven Hassans points for each entry in the BITE model reflected experience they themselves had experienced with the JW. Now you can try and tell people that the JW are not emotionally manipulative, or that this has no bearing on them being a high-control group or whatever, but It is not at all fair of you to claim the BITE model is a "Belief system". Again such a claim --based on absolutely no evidence-- does not exactly scream you are in academia yourself.
More importantly, how come you again and again try to invalidate the people who actually respond to you?
For instance: But that's unfortunately the behaviour of some ex-Cult members: an arrogance, a Mr or Ms knows it all attitude..and in a very defensive modus...and try to shoot down every other opinion an other person can have.
So now it would appear the people on this thread ARE ex-cult members and their assessment of the JW group (based on among other things Hassans ideas) is CORRECT? So your point is that Steven Hassan might be correct re. the JW, and the people here who used Hassans methods did arrive at the right answer, but he is still highly problematic?
-
12
THE UNITED NATIONS OF RELIGION. THE NEXT "SIGN" OF THE END.
by DATA-DOG inyep, you heard it here folks!
i have it on good authority [ an eldubs wife ] that the pope and some old codger are talking about a united nations of religion.
there is even talk of one world religion (gasp!!
-
-
bohm
This would be like the baby-beast or the beast?
-
47
The Illusion of Superiority
by Coded Logic inafter reading dozens and dozens of posts and hundreds of comments, it seems to me that a great many people on this forum think that since they figured out ttatt, they must therefore be a highly intelligent and incredibly rational individual.
let me take a moment to congratulate everyone.
its a big step to figure this out - i know.. that said, it doesn't make you a genius!
-
-
bohm
Coded Logic: Oh yeah smarty pants
Hello Coded Logic!
Coded Logic: Not all logical arguements are scientific theories - but all scientific theories are logical arguements.
Interesting. However notice you have now substituted "logical argument" for "logic"; recall your original statement was:
Coded Logic: logic is a mental construct that we use to model reality. Just like the validity of a map is in its ability to show us where things are, the validity of logic is in its explanatory and predictive capabilities. This is important because the better model of reality we have, the better decisions we're going to be able to make.
I pointed out one could just as well replace "logic" with "scientific theory" in that definition and you now say this is obvious since "scientific theory" is a "logical argument". However your definition was of logic and not a logical argument so i am still puzzled. We might well agree a scientific theory should be logically consistent (but IS a scientific theory like the cell theory a "logical argument"? is it "logic"?. I do not see why this is obviously the case or how we could determine this was the case..) however this has no bearing on the definition of "logic" as such which is what we are actually talking about. Later, ofcourse, you heap upon this confusion by the statement: "seemingly unaware that science is a form of logic".
Quite frankly I dont understand what you are getting at.
However, as my OP was purely in reference to real world claims, a definition of the former was given.
So eg. the work of Godel on first and second order logic is not included in your definition of logic? interesting.
I provide both a great deal of information on logic and its definition
So you keep telling me, but whenever I ask some questions you respond in a hostile manner.
-
5
Let's take bets. Will Wt lose its Charitable tax free status in the UK
by joe134cd ini resoundingly say no they won't.
they will just worm their way out of it,.
-
-
bohm
No way!
-
83
PART TWO of AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE BY A PRACTICING JEHOVAH'S WITNESS
by Sparks inwhile you are sitting there reading this, there are literally hundreds of thousands of young males and females all over the world [ mostly in america / canada and england] sitting in their grotty little smelly bedrooms or flats, designing computer viruses that they will up-load onto web-sites to cause anonymous innocent peoples computers to malfunction.
these creeps spend literally weeks,months or even years hoping to make a computer viruses that will get into peoples computer bios to completely destroy their computers.
they never see the peoples anger, frustration and distress.... the damage can cost each person about 1,000 [ $1,660.74 ] or more to replace a basic new laptop or tower.
-
-
bohm
A mighty blast from jehovahs ass!
-
47
The Illusion of Superiority
by Coded Logic inafter reading dozens and dozens of posts and hundreds of comments, it seems to me that a great many people on this forum think that since they figured out ttatt, they must therefore be a highly intelligent and incredibly rational individual.
let me take a moment to congratulate everyone.
its a big step to figure this out - i know.. that said, it doesn't make you a genius!
-
-
bohm
To give an example. Suppose someone wrote a very long post under the heading "The illusion of superiority" and it began:
After reading dozens and dozens of posts and hundreds of comments, it seems to me that a great many people on this forum think that since they figured out TTATT, they must therefore be a highly intelligent and incredibly knowledgeable individual. Let me take a moment to congratulate everyone. Its a big step to figure this out - I know.
That said, IT DOESN'T MAKE YOU A GENIUS! Nor does it make you a knowledgeable person. In fact, there is a great number of people on this forum who don't seem to understand even the most basic tennants of science. Ironically, the people who don't understand science are usually the quickest ones to accuse other people of being "unscientific." And, I would venture to guess, almost everyone who has read this far is currently nodding their heads and thinking to themselves - "Yes, there are a lot of people who are bad at science on this site." - without even the slightest consideration that they may fall into that catagory.
What do you think about this way of writing it? Do you wonder if the person thinks you belong in this category of unscientific individuals who have deluded themselves into thinking they know something? Do you think this is an example of good/efficient scientific communication even if the critisism is correct?
Instead, suppose you started a thread under the heading: "Something interesting about [eg.] thermodynamics", and gave an example of something you had observed many people got wrong, why it was wrong and what the right answer was. I imagine you wouldnt get a lot of pushback, that many would find it interesting to read and all would think you knew something about thermodynamics.
On the other hand if you consider a 2 page angry rant on the subject that people know jack shit about science even if they think they do; well, that person may or may not know something about science but he sure haven't demonstrated it; at the very least few are likely to read the thread and come away thinking "geh, i should really learn about thermodynamics!"