Posts by sabastious

So I disagree . . . if a claimant wishes to end the discussion and retain the status quo . . . then it is the claimant that should drop the issue. Asking probing questions and exposing flaws in a belief is not a crime . . . especially when those beliefs are being dispensed for public consumption.

Such cold use of legal language. This is a discussion group for the purposes of healing. I get the feeling like we have different ideas about how the community should operate. I think this is a monastery of sorts where ailing members of the Watchtower society come to heal. People should be free to express their ideas without fear of rejection or ridicule. That's what many egotistical rationalists do on this forum is reject people's ideas as in telling them to go home if they wish to continue to express them after being interrogated (fun place, eh?). This is a form of shunning and it's a trait picked up from the Watchtower. I have noticed that many rationalists on this forum engage in shunning. After I changed my tone from rationalist to mystic some people publically declared they had stopped reading me. Almost like they have a political party to cater to. Such a rigorous pursuit of a certain standard of discussion can border on insanity.

Again, you appear to believe that it is only 'believers' that can be, or are, personally attacked.

No, I know that it can come from both ends, but the fact remains that many are obviously motivated by a dislike for another person and thinnly viel it as a "search for scientific truth."

Do you think some believers need to adjust they way they communicate with others. Including personal attacks?

Of course we can all improve, however the rationalists have a bigger problem. That's why the dispute exists, not because the sides are equal, but because they are unequal. As it stands the rationalists clearly offer more ad hominem than the believers, A LOT MORE. This I can personally attest to. The believers DO NOT follow rationalists around and gnaw at people's ankles. They DO NOT call scientists liars for preaching current scientific theory. They don't even hold rationalists up to the a spiritualist standard even though the rationalists hold the spiritualists to their standard. Really, I don't see much resolution and therefore a truce will not come to fruition. The ball is in the unbelievers court, plain and simple.

-Sab

699

A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

by palmtree67 in

jw
friends

ricky gervais tweeted this 11/14/12 and i totally agree with it:.

"there are good atheists and bad atheists.

there are good believers and bad believers.. no god has ever changed that.".

sabastious

Ah really? So you think that the JW religion deserves equal reasonable doubt? I see very little tolerance from some for their belief on this forum.

They have been weighed, measured and have been found wanting. They deserved the benefit of the doubt in the beginning, yes. Too much evidence is stacked against them.

-Sab

699

A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

by palmtree67 in

jw
friends

ricky gervais tweeted this 11/14/12 and i totally agree with it:.

"there are good atheists and bad atheists.

there are good believers and bad believers.. no god has ever changed that.".

sabastious

What if those words are the appropriate descriptors? Do you object to calling WT a cult? Do you object to calling Hitler a megalomaniac?

I believe a strong case has to be made to assert someone is a pathological egotist. And the cult remark was totally unfounded. Are you defending these terms used? The only term I see as accurate to describe JWN believers is eccentric.

In popular usage, eccentricity (also called quirkiness or kookiness) refers to unusual or odd behavior on the part of an individual. This behavior would typically be perceived as unusual or unnecessary, without being demonstrably maladaptive. Eccentricity is contrasted with "normal" behavior, the nearly universal means by which individuals in society solve given problems and pursue certain priorities in everyday life. People who consistently display benignly eccentric behavior are labeled as "eccentrics".

Charles Manson is a megalomaniac, not any believer in JWN no matter how eccentric they are. Not liking someone is not an excuse to personally attack them.

-Sab

699

A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

by palmtree67 in

jw
friends

ricky gervais tweeted this 11/14/12 and i totally agree with it:.

"there are good atheists and bad atheists.

there are good believers and bad believers.. no god has ever changed that.".

sabastious

Unless an atheist uses it, right?

I think sarcasm is fine, it's when they use terms like "megalomania" and "cult" that I call foul. I am the last person on earth who should be complaining about sarcasm. I know you really wanted to discover this double standard, but you are mistaken as is often the case (I'm just messin' with you!).

-Sab

699

A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

by palmtree67 in

jw
friends

ricky gervais tweeted this 11/14/12 and i totally agree with it:.

"there are good atheists and bad atheists.

there are good believers and bad believers.. no god has ever changed that.".

sabastious

I never said I had to wait....you are saying that. I am saying that may be how I would respond. In fact. No one really knows how they will respond to a situation until it occurs. Same with your forgiveness. You don't really know that you will be able to do that, with a gods help, or not.

You are right I don't know if I would be capable of forgiving. However I do know that it would be the right thing to do. The scenario works perfectly to illustrate how difficult making the right choice can be.

-Sab

699

A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

by palmtree67 in

jw
friends

ricky gervais tweeted this 11/14/12 and i totally agree with it:.

"there are good atheists and bad atheists.

there are good believers and bad believers.. no god has ever changed that.".

sabastious

Semantics sab. The fact you missed, is that I didn't take it as either, in spite of your admission that it was intended to be sarcastic. Instead I focussed on your point. Do you get my point?

You chose to bring up the fact that I was being sarcastic and then you used it to support your argument by using a descriptive word with a negative connotation. Negative and positive connotations are not matters of semantics. My being sarcastic was merely a chosen means of communication because I felt it was the only way to accurately get my point across. It's not an invalid line of communication.

-Sab

699

A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

by palmtree67 in

jw
friends

ricky gervais tweeted this 11/14/12 and i totally agree with it:.

"there are good atheists and bad atheists.

there are good believers and bad believers.. no god has ever changed that.".

sabastious

That's an interesting perception. So pulling apart an idea is interrogation? Should ideas not be pulled apart?

You have a profound misunderstanding of what I posted and it goes to show that you are part of the problem, rather than the solution. It's not just the interrogation, I agree that ideas should be pulled apart. However after they are there is no need to deem that person unable to speak further on the subject. There is almost always reasonable doubt to be found in any conclusion if one looks hard enough. Vigilance should never be discouraged.

I have noticed that after this interrogation process is completed that the posters who initiated it make sure the subject isn't brough up again or else following where it was left off. For instance a poster might claim: "You have been shown that Lock Ness Monster is a myth!" Then the other person might say, "I believe in the Lock Ness Monster depsite what this poster has showed me." This is where the first poster really should drop the issue. However I have seen posters not take this step and press the issue and this is what causes some longwithstanding disputes.

So yes, ideas should be pulled apart, ONCE and then conclusions can be personally made. Nothing on this forum should ever be regarded as official especially since only the mods and admins have editing abilties.

-Sab

699

A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

by palmtree67 in

jw
friends

ricky gervais tweeted this 11/14/12 and i totally agree with it:.

"there are good atheists and bad atheists.

there are good believers and bad believers.. no god has ever changed that.".

sabastious

Mr response to this would be to do everything I could do to prevent further suicide bombers doing it to someone elses child. I would be protesting, marching, demonstrating. Whatever I could to wake the world up to the personal effects of this disgusting behaviour and belief. And as far as forgiving them. I may or may not do that for my own benefit to give me peace of mind. But I certainly wouldn't do it to appease some god. And since no god actually helped to prevent my child being murdered...it would seem utterly futile to get help dealing with the issue after the fact.

Why do you have to wait to be personally affected until you act? Are there not dead children already? Is it the responsibility of the victim to protest? What if they are not up to it?

-Sab

699

A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

by palmtree67 in

jw
friends

ricky gervais tweeted this 11/14/12 and i totally agree with it:.

"there are good atheists and bad atheists.

there are good believers and bad believers.. no god has ever changed that.".

sabastious

That's not smearing sab . . . an idea is proved sound, through question and interrogation.

Look Size, we can sit here and theorize, but the fact is that there is a vien of JWN that is against the idea of this forum containing unverifiable claims. They don't want someone running around claiming the Lock Nest Monster exists. They will first approach the subject with genuine interest and when a certain standard is not met they are targeted for vitriol in an attempt to bully them off the forum. Good cop/bad cop is used as a means of frustrating the opponent into getting banned or leaving on a defeat. Again, I almost feel like you and I see different things by witnessing the same forum. You think the Lock Nest Monster guy has compelling evidence? Of course he doesn't, but that doesn't mean there can't be a group of Nessy fanatics on this forum. That would be cool, but if they are made to feel stupid for believing what they believe then they will simply not be here, which is bad because all are welcome. These people are only interested in creating an environment that they like. They want control of the thermostat, but the thing is they can only manipulate their way to it because they don't have any actual control.

ou can see my post count and time of joining . . . so I could see your first question as a snide remark . . . but I don't, because you are partially right . . . personal attacks get thrown around some of the time.

Snide? That's a strong word, I'd use sarcastic. My point isn't the quantity of personal attack, it's the quality. They are often hid in a high vocabulary which makes them all the more potent.

-Sab