"I will tell you why you don't believe"

by Sirona 41 Replies latest jw experiences

BluesBrother
BluesBrother

My post disappeared ! I went back to adjust the quote area and it all went blank
What I said was that our fiend the dub may have been told of Mathew 13.11.12" To you it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the kingdom but to those people it is not granted "
I have heard some speakers say that they are the chosen people to bear the Good News , and it is a privilige that god does not give to just anyone. Sad to say, I might have said it myself at one time, but certainly not to any particular person , that is rude
Sirona

FD
But you are essentially the same.
Wrong. Its clear that you have no tolerance for religion or those who have beliefs outside of your "scientific testing". (I'm sure you'll agree with me on that point) The trouble is, by making blanket generalisations that all religions are the same, you cloud the truth of the matter - they are not all the same. Some are harmful to human beings, some are not. The cult-types like JWs are not the same as other religions who are not controlling to that level.
There is certainly a difference between (for example) people who believe in absurdities that require them to dance naked during a full moon, and those who believe in absurdities that require them to fly aeroplanes into skyscrapers.
For a starter Hey! There is nothing in my religion which says I'm required to dance naked under a full moon. Can you say "misinformed"? If I did choose to dance naked under a full moon (which I haven't by the way) then it would be for the purpose of enjoying life and celebrating beautiful things. I have stood naked in the rain, but that is because I'm simply the sort of person who loves the feeling of rain against my skin - experiences are important to me - probably more important than knowing about lab tests. (sorry about that rant, but of course I'm touchy about such misinformation)
You may think me closed-minded or arrogant, but I will never accept that beliefs based on feelings are equivalent or comparable to those based on the application of reason to the available evidence. I will never accept extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence, nor will I ever believe that religious beliefs should somehow be exempt from the rigourous process of investigation by which we learn to distinguish reality from fantasy.
Aha. That is the crux of the matter, IMO. I am entitled to believe based on my own subjective experience, I don't ask you to believe the same things. Albert Einstein said "Imagination is more important than knowledge"
Sirona
Abaddon

Sirona
Predictable.

We both are, with certain constraints, albeit at oppostion in our paradigms. I saw an angel yesterday...
I knew you were going to say that and it wasn't ESP ....LOL
Mmmm... so you're saying it's possible to develop an understanding of what a person's intentions or next actions might be without any paranormal phenomena? Nah... you can't prove you didn't read my mind... it must be ESP...
(I hope you realise that whilst I am teasing you, it's affectionate)
In both cases the person making the statement believes they have an insight on truth the other doesn't have.
I did not say that
I do not think I have more insight on the truth. What the heck is truth anyway? I said that my beliefs are right for me and my life now, and your non-belief is right for you and your life now.
No, and I know you don't feel that either, but your belief structure implies that, as you feel people not being 'god' focused is part of a plan. Whilst I might have opinions about people who use a non-evidentary paradigm, I certainly don't claim that I know they are part of a plan. Your implicit claim to have an insight on what is really happening is, whether you like it or not, a claim to have an insight on 'truth'. I don't even claim there is such a thing as truth; you seem to feel the same way but your beliefs imply otherwise.
I wouldn't say that Abaddon had faulty reasoning - his reasoning does not appear to be faulty. I have not said that Abaddon has not got divine favour. The woman was suggesting that my divine "gift" had been taken away from me based on my actions, I suggested that Abaddon's disbelief is NOTHING to do with him not being approved of by God, and more to do with him being "himself" in this life. In fact, the more you consider what I actually said, the more you'll see how different my comments were to the JW's.
I say Abaddon is not "condemned" and is just as enlightened as the rest of us, and you both think I'm condemning him just like the JW condemned me?
Nah, and I make it clear I appreciate the difference as you are non-condemnatory. However, that is the difference - an important one I grant you, but she (JW lady) has as much proof for her nasty little beliefs as you have for your nice fuzzy beliefs.
Proof ain't everything, but it's how you turn on lights, wipe your ass, work a computer, drive a car, research a problem, cook a meal, perform a task. All these things are testable processes. All these thing are part of an evidentary paradigm.
To suddenly disengage from the evidentary paradigm that you use 95% of the day to get from a to b and get things done when you want to believe something is FINE. But it's best to accept it for what it is; a personal voyage of discovery that works for you.
To imply that my disbelief is part of the plan that you believe the Universe runs on is to incorporate me into your belief stucture. I make it a rule never to be incorporated into other people's belief structures unless it involves free access to vestal virgins or regular orgies. Your attitude to my disbelief (as nice as it might be) has the same base motivations and impetus as those of the spittle-lipped lobby who would damn me to hell; they would also see my disbelief as fitting into a plan of some sort, just like the lady you quoted.
I'd say that you are doing what you seem to tend to do - that is lump all religious people into one group. You make no real distinction between the JW and me because in your eyes were both "stupid" for believing in anything....right? There are some beliefs which do not condemn others, which are not fundamentalist and which therefore don't harm people.
You are right that the affects of belief and the end results vary according to the belief, but the process of belief is the same process. Think of it; the genuine witches who got burned by Christians (along with all the old ladies who had land people wanted who were accused of being witches to get them out of the way) had a similar paradigm to the people burning them, although their beliefs had a different affect and effect.
Perhaps you should be distinguishing between ordinary "believers" and those who are part of a damaging cult, instead of suggesting we're essentially the same. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater they say.
Oh no! You used THE sentence! Argh!!!! (joke).
Where do we draw the line though? Were the people who orchestrated the Witch Trails or the Inquistiton part of a damaging cult? Are the Muslims and Hindus mobs who take it in turns to hack each other to death in disputes in India part of damaging cults?
Or are they trapped in a process of belief which makes harmful, illogical actions more likely than someone who uses an evidentary paradigm as their paradigm allows such actions based on 'higher' justifications?
This is not to argue disbelief makes harm less likely; Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot et. al. have proved otherwise. BUT that harm is definable as harm from within its own paradigm. (side note: I don't believe Hitler was an example of someone using an evidentary paradigm, but include him for the sake of arguement).
Harm resulting from a belief-based paradigm is very often not seen as harmful when vuiewed from within the paradigm due to the distortions on perception belief requires.
Funky D
No, I don't think you were condemning him. It was probably closer to condescension than condemnation, although I know that was not your purpose. You appeared to be saying that his not believing is part of a divine plan - or universal purpose etc. - rather than it being a consequence of the conclusions he reached as a result of applying reason. You may not even understand the importance of that difference. Telling him that he had applied reason incorrectly and had forgotten to factor in x, y or z could have begun a fruitful exchange of ideas, with the possibility for both sides to learn.
Nicely put D.
You may think me closed-minded or arrogant, but I will never accept that beliefs based on feelings are equivalent or comparable to those based on the application of reason to the available evidence. I will never accept extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence, nor will I ever believe that religious beliefs should somehow be exempt from the rigourous process of investigation by which we learn to distinguish reality from fantasy.
Exactly.asleif_dufansdottir
I'd have asked her (at least I hope I would have thought of it quick enough), "So, now that I'm not a JW, then Jehovah's laws like gravity don't apply to me anymore? If something is true, then it's true. Saying that Jehovah has to give you some special gift to see 'the truth' is, in effect, the same thing as predestination. JWs don't believe in predestination, do they??" Tell her she belongs with Calvin and his 'elect', not the JWs.
Absolutely WONDERFUL reply, I don't know if the JW lady would get it, but it's still a fab reply.
Saint Satan
Do you not believe that you also have an insight on truth which sirona doesn't have (and yours is better)?
What is truth? Damn, there I go quoting the Bible again. But yeah, what is truth?
I don't claim that other people's belief or disbelief is part of a teleological Universe. Thus I don't think I have an insight on truth as there isn't one.
I might believe that I use a better paradigm in determining reality, but I feel that's different and demonstably so.
LittleToe

Abaddon:
I make it a rule never to be incorporated into other people's belief structures unless it involves free access to vestal virgins or regular orgies.

Why didn't you say so, before...
...welcome to my paradigm!
Or are they trapped in a process of belief which makes harmful, illogical actions more likely than someone who uses an evidentary paradigm as their paradigm allows such actions based on 'higher' justifications?
People are people and mobs can often become subhuman, regardless of beliefs. Just look at soccer football fans, for an example...
Abaddon

Okay Ross, I'll PM you my address and will expect delivery of vestal virgins forthwith.
As for your comment about mobs, you're right, but I wasn't talking about mob psychology, that's a different subject.
funkyderek

Its clear that you have no tolerance for religion or those who have beliefs outside of your "scientific testing". (I'm sure you'll agree with me on that point)

No, I don't agree. People have the right to believe whatever they want to believe as long as they don't violate anyone's rights. They don't have the right not to have those beliefs questioned or ridiculed. Ridiculous beliefs deserve ridicule.
The trouble is, by making blanket generalisations that all religions are the same, you cloud the truth of the matter - they are not all the same. Some are harmful to human beings, some are not.
How can you tell what's harmful and what's not? What standard do you use? If a religion teaches that a certain practice is harmless, but science tells us otherwise, whom should we believe? Do people have a right to choose the one they prefer? Are both beliefs equally valid?
For a starter Hey! There is nothing in my religion which says I'm required to dance naked under a full moon. Can you say "misinformed"?
Can you say "for example"?
If I did choose to dance naked under a full moon (which I haven't by the way) then it would be for the purpose of enjoying life and celebrating beautiful things. I have stood naked in the rain, but that is because I'm simply the sort of person who loves the feeling of rain against my skin - experiences are important to me - probably more important than knowing about lab tests.
Experiences are important to me too. For me it's watching football and drinking beer, and while that may be important to me, it does not yield any useful information about the world we live in and I accept that my subjective feelings during such an experience cannot be used as a reason to hold any particular beliefs.
I am entitled to believe based on my own subjective experience, I don't ask you to believe the same things.
Yes you are, and I am entitled to dismiss and ridicule those beliefs, and I do so precisely because they are based on your subjective experience and have no grounding in reality.
Albert Einstein said "Imagination is more important than knowledge"
I don't see how this supports your argument at all, unless you think that Einstein was saying that belief in the imaginary is more important or superior to belief in what is known. It seems more likely that he meant that the human ability to imagine is more important than the ability to know. Einstein himself is the perfect example of this. He is remembered for the leaps of imagination that allowed him to see what others could not, but what he gave to us was knowledge. His imagining did not make something true, but it allowed him to see truths that had evaded others.
Sirona

FD
I agree with your comments on Einstein. I'd just add that I think he was saying that we need imagination to even concieve of something, and that something could later be proved scientifically. Therefore I think that some ideas that some people have nowadays may appear to be way out or ridiculous, but may lead us to perform more scientific tests in that area, perhaps even leading to some things being "proven" as real occurrances and not just delusion.
They've already done tests which show that electrical currents and even low level noise can induce certain hallucinatory experiences.
Anyway, I got stung on the other thread with Nathan Natas, so I'm reluctant to enter into these sorts of debates from now on. Its just a case of us going around in circles. I know what I've experienced, and I can see why you don't believe me. Nathan suggesting I might be mentally ill just takes the biscuit, and I'm a person with feelings, after all.
Sirona
ColdRedRain

I tell people I don't believe simply because:
I believe that their prophecies aren't really prophecies, but rather, they're really an interpretation of vauge quotes in the bible that have been used as lucid "prophecies" by other religions using the same formula.
I do not believe an organization who's erronious teachings have cost lives is in harmony with what Christ would have taught.
I do not believe that a religion that has flip-flopped on issues as serious as rape can claim to have a monopoly on morality.
I do believe that a religion that shuns people for reading information that criticizes the religion has something to hide and shares charachteristics with corrupt organizations that kill their opposition when they have damning testamony against them.
I believe that the JW's share many charachteristics of such famous groups as the 2X2's, Scientology the Unification Church and the Boston movement, all of which practice Disfellowshipping and who teach ideas, when looked upon on an objective manner, are absurd.
Any more reasons?
asleif_dufansdottir

There is certainly a difference between (for example) people who believe in absurdities that require them to dance naked during a full moon, and those who believe in absurdities that require them to fly aeroplanes into skyscrapers.

For a starter Hey! There is nothing in my religion which says I'm required to dance naked under a full moon. Can you say "misinformed"? If I did choose to dance naked under a full moon (which I haven't by the way) then it would be for the purpose of enjoying life and celebrating beautiful things.

Well, I have. Don't knock it if you haven't tried it, FD.
And, for the record, it wasn't 'my belief in absurdities' that 'required' me to do it. I am, at best, an agnostic Pagan. Nothing 'required' me to do it. Sometimes you just do things because you enjoy them and it seems to connect on an emotional level.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio...I'd be very careful of broadly using the term 'absurdities'. Especially, as it turns out, you don't really know what you're talking about...

"I will tell you why you don't believe"

Share this