The idea that you have "forever" made me take time to smell the roses.
I am now in my 60's and I realize that I spent too much time smelling the roses.
I missed out on a whole different boquet of aromas.
Roses look great on cemetery plots.
scotoma
JoinedPosts by scotoma
-
31
As A JW You Never Have Time To Smell The Roses
by minimus inyou always were cramming to get to the next assignment.
you had to personal study, read your daily text, read the bible daily, prepare for field service, prepare for meetings, get to them at the proper time, preach as much as possible, etc.
we never truly enjoyed life..
-
-
-
22
Can you think of ONE teaching of Jehovah Witnesses that hasn't changed since the religion started?
by Unbrainwashed publisher1 inwhith this recent fds and gb debacle i cant think of one teaching that they have not altered since this org began?.
-
-
scotoma
The idea that souls (animal as well as humans) consist of a physical body plus the breath of life.
This is a core doctrine that is consitent with the Hebraic concept of soul prior to the Greek influence.
Although the idea that your thoughts perish at death dominated the thinking of the Bible writers there were subtle indications that there were other influences. Witch of endor materializing Samuel stands out. The Christian scriptures have a lot of confusion with things like the rich man and lazarus.
The JW stance on "soul" is solid. It is also the one thing in the Bible that agrees with science.
We don't have an immortal soul.
The witnesses have stuck to that.
-
23
Your response: THE WRITTEN WORD weakens the human mind....Y? N?
by Terry inwhat reaction do you have--what ideas and responses to what socrates was trying to say?.
has the written word created a weakening in the human mind?.
does relying on books and the thoughts of others cripple our freedom and originality of thought?.
-
-
scotoma
Nothing wrong with the written word.
There are just too damn many words.
Authors feel they have to write 400 pages of stuff to make it worth occupying a space on the book shelf.
I can read 50,000 words in a minute. I look at the title, and what people say about the book and decide it isn't worth the time.
The older I get the faster I can read.
Look into Squashed Philosophers. http://sqapo.com/index.htm
-
13
Man's natural reaction to an encounter with the LIVING God
by Terry inworship is man's natural reaction to an encounter with the living god.
for humans unacquainted with anything but a book or a prayer or a seat in an arena where "god" is spoken it is a 2nd level intellectual or emotional experience.
not reality.. idolatry becomes necessary.. what better way to serve an unknown and unknowable except by erecting a helpful worship aid: image?.
-
-
scotoma
Ted lectures are my Kingdom Hall substitute.
-
56
I've been thinking the Bible isn't legitimate--long indoor mat-rant
by sd-7 ini'm not sure where this thought came from (believers will no doubt say 'from satan'), but it has started to coalesce in my brain lately.
i've often referred to the bible and argued from it to debunk jw beliefs, and still tried to consider it as a great piece of literature at the very least.
but as my wife was listening to the meeting on a loud speaker phone at home this weekend, i just had this thought.
-
-
scotoma
The Bible basically is not the book people want it to be.
-
13
TRULY... !!!!!
by Marvin Shilmer inin both question and statement form, one word thats overused to the point of nausea is truly.
- is that truly the case?
got new for whoever is asking; either that is the case or that is not the case.
-
-
scotoma
Indeed!!
-
7
untitled
by Marvin Shilmer inin both question and statement form, one word thats overused to the point of nausea is truly.
why do folks use this term so much?
is it voodoo?
-
-
scotoma
Indeed!
-
192
Atheism's occult roots
by NoStonecutters in[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:documentproperties> <o:revision>0</o:revision> <o:totaltime>0</o:totaltime> <o:pages>1</o:pages> <o:words>346</o:words> <o:characters>1974</o:characters> <o:company>othello productions</o:company> <o:lines>16</o:lines> <o:paragraphs>4</o:paragraphs> <o:characterswithspaces>2316</o:characterswithspaces> <o:version>14.0</o:version> </o:documentproperties> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>ja</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> <w:usefelayout /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!
-
-
scotoma
NoStone:
If you study neurology you will understand that no one is "at the controls". There is no top authority in living organisms. Power is at the bottom of the organism. Hunger, Sex, Freedom, Security, & Novelty Seeking. These are the basics. Gut has more power than muscle. Muscle has more power than brains. Brains have more power than our senses.
I don't ever see a world without the vast majority of people believing that God is controling the universe.
We will be extinct before humans could be enlightened to that extent.
Humans have the illusion that they are in control because survival requires a sense of agency. It's part of our evolutionary heritage. By believing in our "agency" we are able to handle more complex forces in our lives.
Marxists weren't very good scientists or biologists. They believed that humans were infinitely maleable. They thought humans were multi-use modules that could be plugged in anywhere. They were wrong. Any horse breeder knows better.
Atheism is not idealism. It doesn't believe in the inevitabilty of progress. It believes in chaos and whatever emerges is just the way it is. Nothing more.
Atheists don't believe anyone is or can be in control. There is a conspiracy of greed but it is served more efficiently by dumb god believers who introject an imaginary God that will punish them if they don't do as they are told.
Religion is cheap orientation. You don't need to waste time "thinking" about your purpose or discovering your talents. You simply do as you're told. Not just JW's but all religions tell you that you needn't worry about much because all mysteries will be revealed after you are dead or when the Messiah arrives. I would think that the world of entertainment, sports, reality shows are more suspect of some grand scheme then pathetic atheism.
There have been efforts to destroy religious practice because dictators are envious of religions ability to get people to surrender their brains.
-
192
Atheism's occult roots
by NoStonecutters in[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:documentproperties> <o:revision>0</o:revision> <o:totaltime>0</o:totaltime> <o:pages>1</o:pages> <o:words>346</o:words> <o:characters>1974</o:characters> <o:company>othello productions</o:company> <o:lines>16</o:lines> <o:paragraphs>4</o:paragraphs> <o:characterswithspaces>2316</o:characterswithspaces> <o:version>14.0</o:version> </o:documentproperties> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>ja</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> <w:usefelayout /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!
-
-
scotoma
NoSTone,
Dog1 is not Dog2,Dog3,Dog4...... Since I got bit by Dog1 i don't trust any dogs.
Dog1 bites when eating his food at 8am. But Dog1 doesn't bite when he plays fetch...... Even though Dog1 bit me when I tried to play with him while eating his food I am going to keep all dogs at a safe distance.
The fallacy results from tranferring negative or postive aspects of something in its original context to the thing (or idea) in the present situation.
The origin of something rarely has any relevance to its merits.
You asked "is it simply everything I have said that's fallacious?"
No. But your basic premise is fallacious.
You stated "it's been demonstrated to some degree that atheism's current worldly meaning is still relevant to its occult past"
You can relate anything to everything. Significance is another matter. Signicance is a personal judgement and can be scaled somewhat on whatever scale a person chooses.
To me and many others we are atheists simply because we don't believe in god.
We have concluded that not only is there insufficient evidence of the big personal god we believe that the concept of a personal god is incoherent and impossible.
And without concrete evidence we will continue to believe this even if everyone that adopts an atheist philsophy ends up going on a killing,robbing, raping, spree.
We are atheists because we can defend that belief based on the facts.
-
192
Atheism's occult roots
by NoStonecutters in[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:documentproperties> <o:revision>0</o:revision> <o:totaltime>0</o:totaltime> <o:pages>1</o:pages> <o:words>346</o:words> <o:characters>1974</o:characters> <o:company>othello productions</o:company> <o:lines>16</o:lines> <o:paragraphs>4</o:paragraphs> <o:characterswithspaces>2316</o:characterswithspaces> <o:version>14.0</o:version> </o:documentproperties> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>ja</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> <w:usefelayout /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!
-
-
scotoma
NoStone:
You have committed the "GENETIC FALLACY"
Look it up on wikipedia.
After you have done that please post the appropriate criticism of your post. Explain to everyone here how you now realize that you were not aware of the GENETIC FALLACY. Compare your error to other examples of this fallacy.
You need to clear up your own argument.
In fact everyone on here ought to do their homework BEFORE posting.
Why should we go through the trouble of trying to straighten out peoples muddled thinking. Especially when it is so glaringly fallacious.
In the google age its unacceptable.