Do all therapists need to be qualified? Here in Australia its illegal for a person who is not qualified to call him/herself a psychologist, but they can still be part of the industry in a lesser role.
Joey Jo-Jo
JoinedPosts by Joey Jo-Jo
-
21
JW "Therapists"
by baltar447 inok, i've known a couple of these in my time.
one is a douche that i wouldn't trust as far as my 4 year old can throw him.
the other seems to be a decent therapist and he's really intelligent but i don't see how he can't see it's a freaking cult??
-
-
-
35
Was everyone surprised by how nice worldly people can be?
by Inisc ini, like most born ins grew up being taught that everyone who was not a jw was inherently wicked, that they were dishonest, unloving, selfish, bad parents who don't care about their children, and also sad empty people with no direction in life.. as i grew older i started to see that this wasn't always true with every one, that what i was taught wasn't equating with what i was seeing.. by high school i could see that my friends at school, (yes worldly friends eek!
) we're actually decent people with morals, they may have engaged in a little fornication here and there but not promiscuously, and they were good honest people, with goals and parents that cared for them.. but after high school i was phsycologicaly bullied into ceasing contact with my friends altogether, leaving me with little contact with outside world, and the cult mentality had more room to grow, not fully, but enough to unconsciously not fully trust 'worldly' people.. however, once i'd left the org and began to meet people again, i was amazed at actually how good, honest, loving, kind, and caring many people can be!
who love their spouses and children and try their very best to be good parents and partners.
-
-
Joey Jo-Jo
the wb&ts did a good job in demonizing "wordly people" but this is not say that there arent bad people in the world
-
78
Atheism or Agnosticism, which one is correct?
by Joey Jo-Jo inthis has been bugging me for a while, and while i dont want to turn this into something about semantics i think that we should quickly define what an agnostic and atheists are.. richard dawkins defines 7 different types of atheist ranging from weak to militant atheists, but along these definitions there appears one definition with a strong resemblance to agnosticism.. to me an agnostic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in deity/deities, but there are those who define agnostics as a ignorant who simply just don't care or don't have the intelligence to come to sound conclusion.. an atheist can be a person who disbelieves in a deity/deities based on the current mathematical and scientific understandings of the universe, as well as understandings that can refute certain religions such as the strong influence of protestantism christianity in america.. .
from here i will refer deity as anything ranging jehovah to a real spaghetti monster, it's not important because a) we dont know b)for the purpose of this discussion it is not important to define what we believe god to be.. an argument that can be used about a deity is -we cannot prove nor disprove that god exists- this is referred to as a null hypothesis, an assumption that we cannot create a hypothesis to prove or disprove this deity.
this to me is agnosticism and is more correct than the idea of atheism.
-
-
Joey Jo-Jo
^^^More bifurcation yadda yadda
-
46
Threats from the JW mafia (subtle threats)
by thecrushed inmy dad recently found out i wasn't coming to meetings and going out in field service.
he found an excuse to get me alone in his car and just lit into me about it.
he said that if i'm not going out in service that i'm not one of jehovah's witnesses and the brothers won't be able to trust me when the time comes to go undercover due to being attacked by the authorities.
-
-
Joey Jo-Jo
"When I thought I was out, they pull me back in"
-
78
Atheism or Agnosticism, which one is correct?
by Joey Jo-Jo inthis has been bugging me for a while, and while i dont want to turn this into something about semantics i think that we should quickly define what an agnostic and atheists are.. richard dawkins defines 7 different types of atheist ranging from weak to militant atheists, but along these definitions there appears one definition with a strong resemblance to agnosticism.. to me an agnostic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in deity/deities, but there are those who define agnostics as a ignorant who simply just don't care or don't have the intelligence to come to sound conclusion.. an atheist can be a person who disbelieves in a deity/deities based on the current mathematical and scientific understandings of the universe, as well as understandings that can refute certain religions such as the strong influence of protestantism christianity in america.. .
from here i will refer deity as anything ranging jehovah to a real spaghetti monster, it's not important because a) we dont know b)for the purpose of this discussion it is not important to define what we believe god to be.. an argument that can be used about a deity is -we cannot prove nor disprove that god exists- this is referred to as a null hypothesis, an assumption that we cannot create a hypothesis to prove or disprove this deity.
this to me is agnosticism and is more correct than the idea of atheism.
-
-
Joey Jo-Jo
yadda yadda 2: That's what I tried to tell Zeus lol, his reasoning also shows the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. And his definitions, before his post I copy and pasted definitions from the web on the word agnostic, as you can see there is more than one definition for the word, he does not understand that words can have more than one definition and can change its meaning during the course of time.
Look at cyberjesus post - Haha i love this sentence... dont you even consider what you write? lol its like atheists dont lack acknowledge, its like agnostics choose to lack acknowledge, no idea.
-
78
Atheism or Agnosticism, which one is correct?
by Joey Jo-Jo inthis has been bugging me for a while, and while i dont want to turn this into something about semantics i think that we should quickly define what an agnostic and atheists are.. richard dawkins defines 7 different types of atheist ranging from weak to militant atheists, but along these definitions there appears one definition with a strong resemblance to agnosticism.. to me an agnostic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in deity/deities, but there are those who define agnostics as a ignorant who simply just don't care or don't have the intelligence to come to sound conclusion.. an atheist can be a person who disbelieves in a deity/deities based on the current mathematical and scientific understandings of the universe, as well as understandings that can refute certain religions such as the strong influence of protestantism christianity in america.. .
from here i will refer deity as anything ranging jehovah to a real spaghetti monster, it's not important because a) we dont know b)for the purpose of this discussion it is not important to define what we believe god to be.. an argument that can be used about a deity is -we cannot prove nor disprove that god exists- this is referred to as a null hypothesis, an assumption that we cannot create a hypothesis to prove or disprove this deity.
this to me is agnosticism and is more correct than the idea of atheism.
-
-
Joey Jo-Jo
bohm, one last time, you or any atheist can not define the god that Dawkins, Sagan, Hitchens and myself because defining involves ASSUMPTIONS. Assumptions are meaningless, I have been telling you the same thing all the way through this thread and you still just dont get it, again I am not a theist, I am not a christian.
Now, clearly there is no evidence for the concept you describe, and no good reasons why we should accept it over any non-god hypothesis for how the universe came about. So sure, we can be agnostic towards the concept the same way we can be agnostic towards brane cosmology, quantum loop gravity interpretations or black hole evolution, but nobody actually describe their beliefs about those concepts as agnostisism, which is why i (and Zeus, cyberjesus, OTW, etc. etc.) think the idea of agnostisism is a tad silly and redundant. Its a lot easier to speak plain english: I do not believe/accept the god-idea due to lack of evidence.
AGNOSTICS DONT TAKE SIDES - Now, clearly there is no evidence for the concept you describe, and no good reasons why we should accept it over any non-god hypothesis - ASSUMPTIONS, there is no EVIDENCE to suggest that what you wrote here is correct either.
So sure, we can be agnostic towards the concept the same way we can be agnostic towards brane cosmology, quantum loop gravity interpretations or black hole evolution, but nobody actually describe their beliefs about those concepts as agnostisism,
Yes you can, a book written about carl sagan conversations with Carl Sagan quote him saying "I am an Agnostic" we can and have no choice but to be Agnostics towards anything we can not explain, we can not be A-THEISTS to brane cosmology, quantum loop gravity interpretations or black hole evolution (and these are some of things we do know yet can not fully understand) but we can be A-THEISTS when it comes to talking to creationists, we can foolishly be THEISTS through faith (lack of evidence), BUT is it ok to call ourselves THEISTS or A-THEISTS? A lack of evidence is no proof that god does not exist just as a lack of evidence is proof that god does not exist. We can come up with many definitions but in the end we are limited to what we know.
Agnostics was a word used more before than what it is used now, the idea that agnostics are ignorants is just wrong, the idea that agnostics believe in god but dont have proof are in fact apatheists.
Its like a puzzle with many jigsaws missing
which is why i (and Zeus, cyberjesus, OTW, etc. etc.) think the idea of agnostisism is a tad silly and redundant.
Depending on the context, that's why I posted those videos of Dawkins and Hitchens.
-
78
Atheism or Agnosticism, which one is correct?
by Joey Jo-Jo inthis has been bugging me for a while, and while i dont want to turn this into something about semantics i think that we should quickly define what an agnostic and atheists are.. richard dawkins defines 7 different types of atheist ranging from weak to militant atheists, but along these definitions there appears one definition with a strong resemblance to agnosticism.. to me an agnostic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in deity/deities, but there are those who define agnostics as a ignorant who simply just don't care or don't have the intelligence to come to sound conclusion.. an atheist can be a person who disbelieves in a deity/deities based on the current mathematical and scientific understandings of the universe, as well as understandings that can refute certain religions such as the strong influence of protestantism christianity in america.. .
from here i will refer deity as anything ranging jehovah to a real spaghetti monster, it's not important because a) we dont know b)for the purpose of this discussion it is not important to define what we believe god to be.. an argument that can be used about a deity is -we cannot prove nor disprove that god exists- this is referred to as a null hypothesis, an assumption that we cannot create a hypothesis to prove or disprove this deity.
this to me is agnosticism and is more correct than the idea of atheism.
-
-
Joey Jo-Jo
I dont see a fallacy, Dawkins claimed to be an atheist when it came to discussing the god of the bible, in that regard I am also an atheist(I also wrote before on this thread that I do not believe in the god writen by men), but when it comes to what else is out there Dawkins in that respect acknowledges to be an agnostic, the same agnostic defined in Carl Sagans words quoted on my last post. Hitchens says the same thing when his oponent asks him a very similar question, in fact Craig tells Hitchens Atheists are Agnostics, althought the argument is invalid as Hitchens is talking to a theist.
Now I don't agree with everything these people say. I wanted this thread to move ahead but seems like it will end here, how could you possibly ask an agnostic to define god through assumptions is beyong me. In that regard I could assumed God farting the cosmos out from his ass (well that would at least explain the caotic universe lol).
There were other facets I wanted to discuss, like how atheists view science and parapsychology... maybe on another thread, but they all have to do with agnosticism.
Yadda:There are atheists that claim that god does not exist, but they are a minority, check my previous post on this thread - 17 types of atheism.
-
778
IS GOD REAL? HOW DO YOU KNOW?
by still thinking inthis is an honest question on my part.
someone on this board asked me 'how do you know' a while ago and i really struggled with it.
in fact, it was a turning point for me.
-
-
Joey Jo-Jo
so you are talking about paganism now? lol
-
2
Finding the historical Jesus - Bart Ehrman
by Joey Jo-Jo inthis is very interesting, and i have to agree, the bible makes a lot more sense now.. these are lectures by ehrman about the historical jesus.. http://archive.org/download/historicaljesus/bart-d-ehrman-the-historical-jesus-00-02-one-remarkable-life.mp3.
http://archive.org/download/historicaljesus/bart-d-ehrman-the-historical-jesus-00-03-scholars-look-at-the-life.mp3.
http://archive.org/download/historicaljesus/bart-d-ehrman-the-historical-jesus-00-04-scholars-look-at-the-life.mp3.
-
-
Joey Jo-Jo
I suggest you listen to these, theres a lot more to it than that. And I think Leolaia would agree.
-
2
Finding the historical Jesus - Bart Ehrman
by Joey Jo-Jo inthis is very interesting, and i have to agree, the bible makes a lot more sense now.. these are lectures by ehrman about the historical jesus.. http://archive.org/download/historicaljesus/bart-d-ehrman-the-historical-jesus-00-02-one-remarkable-life.mp3.
http://archive.org/download/historicaljesus/bart-d-ehrman-the-historical-jesus-00-03-scholars-look-at-the-life.mp3.
http://archive.org/download/historicaljesus/bart-d-ehrman-the-historical-jesus-00-04-scholars-look-at-the-life.mp3.
-
-
Joey Jo-Jo
This is very interesting, and I have to agree, the bible makes a lot more sense now.
These are lectures by Ehrman about the historical Jesus.