Posts by Perry

32

No Escape from Religion - Am I wrong?

by Perry in

jw
friends

since every culture ever studied has been shown to possess religious practices aka.

spirituality, the axiom: "culture doesn't exist apart from religion" would seem to indicate that popular ideas concerning the non-religiosity of athiestic tenets are merely fictional.

i have always been amused by the propaganda the non-deists (and sometimes deists as well) use to spin their ideology.

Perry

I understand you, I hope. That makes sense to me; I have some views about things I know some people could well take issue with, but I'm damn'd if I'm gonna change them just to be popular.

And that is the precise reason why I post such topics. Just a short example:

A teen stretching his wings decides to rebel a little against authority, probably just because he has recently became aware that he can. He decides to take issue with a few things that won't get him into trouble. His decides that clothing, hair style and certain lingo are a good way to express his individuality.

He gravitates toward a group that expresses themselves with these social devices in a particular way. The message the new group espouses is, "look at us, we don't conform to anyone....we're free".

Once an accepted member of the new group, an astute observer sees this individual as having even more constraints than he had previously because he then must continue to provide the visual characteristics that associate him with this much smaller group. Were he to deviate from his new group norm, he would be looked down upon as not "with it" anymore and rejected on various levels.

The person struggles to display the groups' characteristics to a greater and greater degree for validation and acceptance. He imagines he is experiencing ultimate freedom, all the while strapped down with new codes and norms to conform to the group.

Eventually as the individual grows, they see the failings, pettiness and limitations of the new group, and then emerge as a wiser participant in the larger society.

The dynamics in those high school groups are alive and well in the larger society too.

I took serious issue with a deist who tried to claim that his religion was hiearchy free a few weeks ago. His claim was roundly defeated....and I ended up feeling embarrassed for him.

Many people simply fall for the sales pitch of different groups over and over again and never emerge as a person acting on principle and personal conviction.

It sounds as though you are a dyed in the wool believer in a world view based on athiesm and don't need validation or popularity to sustain your convictions. If that is true then you no doubt also feel free to change or adjust your opinion should you choose to do so.

If all of that is true, then you have achieved the only complete freedom we actually have as humans; and that is the freedom to choose your own world view and ideology. What more can a person achieve in this life?

It is my hope and aim that people leaving the WBTS will see through the hype and sales pitch that ALL groups expound and make educated personal choices based on the usefullness of each ideology.

After all that we have been through and paid for as a result of our association in the WBTS, the thought evangelist' mantra, "we have freedom and others do not; or "shouting you're an idiot if you don't accept my philosophy", are completely unacceptable in a post JW life.

People will choose an ideology whether they know it or not, even if by default. My purpose is to point out that there are choices, and you might as well ignore the sales pitch of each and evualate the usefulness of each while shedding the WBTS world-view.

I hope to debate you and others on those grounds at a different time, so that a greater understanding of different positions will be revealed with the result of people better able to make informed choices.

Good luck to you, and I too enjoyed the joust.

Perry

6

Schools call in Ed Psych's for JW children!

by dmouse in

jw
friends

i was chatting with my 14 year old son today and he happened to mention that his teacher had recommended he talk with a counsellor.

this was news to me, sounds like an educational psychologist and i was quite disturbed that they had instigated this without contacting us as parents.. however, my son tells me that the counsellor said to him that she has a number of jw children on her books (but didnt give any details issues of confidentiality i guess), and that she was used to handling the sort of problems that jw children have!

apparently my son told her how trapped he felt by the religion, with no possibility of escape until he was older, she said that she was hearing this from other jw children too.. does this mean that my local education authority has identified jw children as possibly needing psychological support?

Perry

Maybe you should visit with the counselor yourself to get more information?

16

Fornication Vs Divorce

by chezza in

jw
friends

hi all,.

i was reading another post earlier about wether or not to let your children bf gf sleep over and brought something to mind that i have given a great deal of thought too.

we all know very well the stand the witnesses take on no sex before marriage, and i wonder how many marriages have ended up in divorce because of this.. how many young ones rush into marriage without really considering the commitment they are taking simply because they want to have sex, i am not saying this is always the case but we all know how strong hormones can be, and given the standpoint on divorce in the organization i wonder if given the chance to have sex before marriage wether or not this would lesson the divorce rate which i might add before i left the dubs was rising even in the organization.

Perry

JT,

As usual a very poignant post.

I remember the big weekly skating parties in the late 70's, it was a lot of fun. Then, by the time I was 16 it was all over. It was deemed inappropriate. So, what did most of the teens do ....they left the truth, at least for a few years.

Teens need to be socialized in age appropriate situations. They need to be structured by those who really care. The thing that is mostly missing in western society (and especially the borg) is genuine connections between people. Our strong individualistic and animalistic traits are often emphasied by those who stand to gain the most from policies formulated on such emphasis.

When people have their social and emotional needs met, they have a remakable ability to display delayed gratification. When people are emotionally and socially starved, they will do anything to attempt to get that feeling of connection and bonding, even involvement in high risk behavior.

Ask any mariage counselor why mates commit adultry and most will tell you it is definitely not about sex. It is about loss of an emotional bond. Those types of bonds require maintenence and effort.

Want to have a better quality life? Delayed gratification will help propel you through college to get you there.

Want to convince a girl that you really care? Delayed gratification is a tried ant true method.

Want to make a million bucks? Delayed gratification will protect you from get rich quick schemes and point you toward more realistic endeavors and the hard work involved.

Unlike animals, people have the ability to look into the future and delay instant gratification for the purpose of gaining a greater measure of happiness and effectiveness as a human being. A lack of strong social and emotional bonds cause many to simply attempt to get the warm feelings associated with acceptance and belonging through that which is readily available.

While teen sex will never be eliminated because of biology, it certainly could curbed if the addage "if it feels good do it" were replaced with caring families and a social network of responsible peers.

Addiction of any sort has been most accurately described for counseling purposes as a mal-adaptive attempt to have a relationship with an object, experience, or feeling.

It is maladaptive because the recriprocal nature of a relationship with a human is impossible when looking toward an object, experience or feeling. Your pot, coke, job (workaholism), squeeze of the week (sex addition) cannot give back in an emotional way the effort you put into it.

So, the action is repeated because the activity does produce a temporary mood change 100% of the time. Since people are never 100% in their ability to give back, a strong delayed gratification skill is needed to sustain a person when real human connections are unavailable.....even if its for just a few hours.

Philosophies and policies based strictly on our biology deny our true potential as human beings a do a great disservice to our societies and future generations.

21

1 Timothy 2:5,6: Maybe the Greatest JW Travesty

by Room 215 in

with the pre-memorial drums beating through dubland, it brings to my mind how the jw insistence on a literal reading of the 144,000 in revelation 7 and 14 has poisoned their entire outlook of the new testament and the teachings of christ.. although they're the most aggressive proselytizers of christendom, it's no wonder they've cooked up a host of specious rationalizations to demur on invitations to participate in public debates: they must know that their position on this bedrock teaching of christianity, i.e.

that jesus died and was raised for all and in his position of hevenly glory, intercedes on their behalf.

there's no question that any attempt by jws to defend their ludicrous teaching in a public forum would subject them to embarassment and well-deserved ridicule, and expose their cultishess.. and this is but the tip of the proverbial iceberg: look what the literal 144,000 does to eviscerate the power of jesus illustration of the sheep and the goats; it compels jws to equivocate on other crystal clear christian concepts, i.e the sonship of god and leading of the holy spirit.

Perry

JeffT said:

I think that the big implication here is that this means that the R&F are followers of MEN, and are looking to MEN for salvation. That is essentially what is said in the two articles on this subject in the 1979 Watchtower. Non annointed derive their salvation from subjecting themselves to the organization

Excellent point Jeff. The bottom line and the net result of this doctrine is that the governing body are the saviour of mankind and not Christ.

And this is exactly what Jesus said would happen at Mt. 24:5 - "many will come in my name, saying I am the Christ [savior]and will mislead many"

True the Society may never have said exactly, "we are the saviour of mankind". But, they have said repeatedly that the other shhep gain salvation by their association with the little flock [governing body].

What is the difference? Absolutely none. I'm ashamed I never took Christ's words seriously before and allowed others to interpret it for me with the result of making Christ a liar. Absolutely incredible.

32

No Escape from Religion - Am I wrong?

by Perry in

jw
friends

since every culture ever studied has been shown to possess religious practices aka.

spirituality, the axiom: "culture doesn't exist apart from religion" would seem to indicate that popular ideas concerning the non-religiosity of athiestic tenets are merely fictional.

i have always been amused by the propaganda the non-deists (and sometimes deists as well) use to spin their ideology.

Perry

Abaddon,

I must concur with gravedancer in your humorous posts. Perhaps humor is my weakness. If that is true you have totally slayed me. Furthermore, both gravedancer and SixofNine have made a much better "last word" than I ever could have.

I will also concede to a slight arrogant characteristic at times as I also conceeded to a slight jealously issue with Amazing a few weeks ago. I will work on it just for you. However, if I can be arrogant at times, one thing I cannot do is recharacterize something for what it definitely is not just to promote my views.

For instance, if I did lean toward adherence to an atheistic ideology (arguably different that atheism in its purest form), I would have no problem in admitting that it would serve the same societal function as other ideologies even if they chose to use the word religion. I would have to go up against a whole slew of sociologists to prove otherwise.

Admittedly, some of my atheist brethren might be upset and point out that we'll get a lot more mileage by refusing to characterize it as such. But, having that arrogant streak that you have alluded to, I would probably tell them, "let's fight it out in the open like men, to hell with being sneaky".

Both SixofNine and gravedancer have made strong arguments in favor of the benefits of an ideology based on atheism. While still abstaining from the "R" word, they are worthy of consideration.

gd:

Atheism puts no obligation on me to consider how my actions will be construed by some God. I do not have to pay heed to stuff like "whatever we do we do for the glory of God" or "pleasse be wise my son, so that I may make a reply to him that is taunting me". There is no guilt trip associated with it. Why because I dont even think about how my pleasures and decisions affect some God.

SixofNine:

Still, the MOST logical take on God's communicating with man, imo, is that we can learn about God from nature, as the theist believes it is His work, therefore reflective of Him.
Funny though, the logical outgrowth from such a belief, is pretty much the same as the logical outgrowth of an atheist looking around and saying "hmmm, I wonder what I can learn from nature".

Now, these have to be very similar to the arguments I would make had I more atheistic ideological leanings. What the hell is so wrong in pointing out the benefits of a logical thought construct based on atheism? The answer: nothing.

If there is nothing wrong with that, and it is truly worthy of open debate and honest consideration, why deny that it would have no effect on society? And if a person truly believes it would have a superior effect on the individual and the society....why not call it a religion....indeed a superior one?

Six and gd,

I appreciated your responses. I will bring up the "next logical step" in this discussion in a future thread. I am hoping to discuss, debate, and compare the benefits and failings of ideologies based on both precepts. I look forward to everone's participation especially my good friend Abaddon. Keep that dinner invitation open!

Six,

You make some very interesting statements toward the close of your post. I'd like to ponder that a while and ask you to elaborate on it, perhaps on e-mail or the phone.

gd,

According to your definition, logically one can only agree. Your definition doesn't fit the science of sociology however. It is worth exploring though, otherwise a lot of time will be wasted in differing definitions.

Abaddon,

good luck with the job hunt.

I uncovered some rather disturbing business developments on my trip to L.A. last week and must return with my attorney to sort things out. I will be only intermittently posting for the next two weeks.

Take care everone.

32

No Escape from Religion - Am I wrong?

by Perry in

jw
friends

since every culture ever studied has been shown to possess religious practices aka.

spirituality, the axiom: "culture doesn't exist apart from religion" would seem to indicate that popular ideas concerning the non-religiosity of athiestic tenets are merely fictional.

i have always been amused by the propaganda the non-deists (and sometimes deists as well) use to spin their ideology.

Perry

Whooosh,

Somebody get a garden hose and cool the patient down. Never, in my years of discussion with people from all schools of thought have I had the pleasure of debating with someone who attacks their apponnent with such vicious and personal rhetoric. Why the ad hominems?

True, I have attacked your reasoning as baseless, mind numbingly repetitive (others have noticed this as well) and inattentive and inapproiate to my logic. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I ever said the words "you are" and then go on to deliver a choice derogatory. True, I did say that you appeared foolish in much of you repetitiveness...I don't feel that is out of line based on the extreme methods you have rersorted to.

However, look at this wonderfful logic you have presented for sctutiny:

[QUOTE/]And this sort of shit;Talk about poisoning the well......you turned it into a sewer.

You also LIE

After a bit of uncontrolled laughter, I actually felt sad for you for sinking to such insults as opposed to sustained coherent argument.

And this is just beautiful animalistic poetry here:

Are you banging the ground, or your chest, or running around screaming waving bits of bushes about? Because that is all that is, chimp level posturing. I know. I do it to. Better. OoooOOOahahaha! See? The triple backflip holding a hardy perenial? Beat that.

Dear Abaddon, I have answered each and every charge with logic and sound reasoning and am still awaiting a rudimentary argument concerning my original post. In your apparent discomfort with the subject matter, your tyrannical anthropoid-like rages that have prompted such unprofessional attacks are now being attributed to me; as if were it to be true, it would somehow improve the moral character of your primitive attacks.

So which is it you great goon?

So when you fail to bully someone into mindless obvilion, just call them a derrogatory? So sad. Abaddon, may I ask you a question? Have you ever had your ass whipped before? If not, please know that it can yield great benefit to those that will allow it to serve a growth mechanism. No, I am not sying that I will deliver to you a good ole' fashion Texas ass whipping, although my previous experience with this type of communication has resulted, more times than not, in a more respectful dialouoge.

And now, after your persona has digressed to the level of hundreds of thousands of years of pre-human evolution, to the point of neanderthal-like name calling and tree destroying rages, you actually have the tamarity to tell all here reading this thread that you have agreed with me from the very beginning? As hard as that is to believe here it is:

I said:

My thesis is that a society and people in general,(I concede to exceptions in cases of derelicts, mentally ill, and the mentally challenged)cannot function without a dominate ideology guiding them.

You last response:

Oh, I agree with that, and I haven;t argued against that, have I?

As ludricrous as this statement is; I agree, you are making my point here.

In fairness to you, I looked up the word tenet, since you defend your very long-winded and now discarded arguments with this interpretation.

Here it is:

a principle, belief or doctrine held by a person or a group

Standing alone the term tenet could be construed either way; either as an underlying principle to support a position, or as an outgrowth of an uncontested belief or position.

Perhaps in your haste to feebly discredit someone with a point of view different than your own, you failed to read my qualification of "tenet" a few lines down in my original post:

Let's look at my point in my very first post:

If the assertion that pure athiesm is not a religion is true, then it must also be true that pure theism is also not a religion. However, the product of either belief, whether it be a sense of community, policy formation, or standards of conduct, would be in my mind the very definition of religion.

Very clearly I am agreeing that athiesm is not a religion. So why all the baseless personal attacks, ilogical reasoning, and beast-like posturing?

It was obvious to everyone else that the pivital point was the functional societal difference, or lack thereof, of the ideologies based on atheism serving essentially the same societal function as religion.

While I'm happy to now know that you are in agreement with with my original assertion and thus have preserved a remnant of intellectual credibility by abandoning an otherwise utterly stupifying line of thought; it concerns me deeply that you have a habit of starting divisions by agreeing with people and then over and over claiming that there is still something to argue about.

When I posted another posters' response to such idiotic, verbose, rhetoric which said:

Abaddon.
Im finished with you bud.
Ive answered ya fifty times and you just keep putting up new posts asking why I dont answer the accusations Ive already answered....50 times.
Get lost.[/QUOTE]
I feel I was fully justified in bringing this to your attention. I know the truth hurts, but how else are you to grow in terms of delivering a coherent and productive discussion?
The Greeks, who mastered oration and public debate to an unusual degree, had a term that when translated into English, loses much of its meaning. Here's the English word:
"Factious"
The Greek for this phrase became a technical term to describe a type of person who was a heretic to his own philosophy, by propagating extreme views of legitimate truths.
One must only conclude that that you are a heretic to your own philosophy since you evidently were forced to admit agreement with my original post after a lenghty debate on our agreement. Like I said earlier, better educated athiests would never sink to such obvious tactics; but rather would gladly opine the virtues and benefits of such.....which of course the heretic course prevents you from doing.
Abaddon, you are a poor athiest, an inept debater; and for many here it seems a waste of time.
While many of your lighter posts on other threads that deal with for example your abilities in the practice of Cunnilingus seem more appropriate for your debate style. You are likely to only encounter giggling females and embarrassed readers who see no point in pursuing such topics on this DB.
Perhaps you merely confused the term Cunnilingus with a false impression that that would somehow empower you as a formidible Cunning Linguist.
Just a thought. ;-)

32

No Escape from Religion - Am I wrong?

by Perry in

jw
friends

since every culture ever studied has been shown to possess religious practices aka.

spirituality, the axiom: "culture doesn't exist apart from religion" would seem to indicate that popular ideas concerning the non-religiosity of athiestic tenets are merely fictional.

i have always been amused by the propaganda the non-deists (and sometimes deists as well) use to spin their ideology.

Perry

Again, another stunning display of fluff and ideocratic reasoning.

However, since you obviously attempted to shorten the whipped cream, I'll make an honest effort to ignore the verbose portions and illustrate how you have not addressed anything of substance at all.

You said:

1/ So what if there has never been a society without religion? What does this prove regarding any assertion that there is no difference in "current ideologies in terms of function".

This is like saying, "so what if every whale ever studied lives in water, what does that have to do with determining why this whale is dying on the beach. He breathes air like other mammals doesn't he?"

I'll again put this very clear. My thesis is that a society and people in general,(I concede to exceptions in cases of derelicts, mentally ill, and the mentally challenged)cannot function without a dominate ideology guiding them.

You've really not answered this to my satisfaction; be nice to me, just reply in one paragraph as to why this is in any way relevant to your assertion.

I would say that since a whale has never been observed to function out of water, it is an indicator of its limitations. Anyone who claims differently should demonstrate how they could. They have the burden of proof.

Your attempt to switch the burden of proof to the side presenting the perponderance of evidence to the contrary, is one of the most logical blunders that I have ever encountered in a discussion.

This level of absurdity would be immediately laughed out of any academic discusion.

You said:

ideologies are different in terms of function because;
a/ Theistic ideologies have to be differentiated as they function differently from each other.

Another red herring. Just because theistic ideologies may have different customs, in no way indicates that they function differently. Likewise, atheistic ideologies differ in terms of customs. Communism and Secular Humanism are very different in terms of what is and what is not accepted. However the basic function of all of the preceeding is to create a template of understanding, a way of differiating the acceptable from the unacceptable, and a foundation for the possibility of stasis in society.

In short they all serve the function on an individual to make sense of an attempt to control the environment; and on the societal scale to crreate stasis as opposed to chaos.

Your previous statement is schocking in its level of avoidance.

You said:

You say its not fair to say theistic people are mad, yet have not answered my point that, clearly, some theistic people believe in things that result in actions that any reasonable person would think of as mad, so that any assertion that it is unfair to say theistic people are mad is a meaningless generalisation, as some obviously are, purely as a function of their theistic beliefs[/i].

If I was to follow your reasoning here, I would need to conclude that just because any sane person would agree that atheistic communism has resulted in the harm and destruction of peoples' lives on an unprecedented scale, all atheists are just as mad.

Surely you would agree that that would be an unfair and meaningless generalisation wouldn't you? Your illogical attempts to justify your extreme bias is truly breath-taking in its sheer scope.

despite the similarities between non-theistic and theistic beliefs and the functioning of these beliefs, a simplistic claim that atheism is a religion is verifiably false,

For the millionth time, I have never even remotely indicated that atheism is a religion. Why do you insist on trying to compare the two. (out of breath) A comparison of theism to atheism is possible; likewise a comparison of atheistic ideologies and religion is possible. But to constantly attribute to me something I have never said in a childish attempt to sidetrack the discussion is simply mind numbing rhetoric and unacceptable.

At least one other poster has made a similar observation on the repetiveness and ineptnes of your replies:

Abaddon.
Im finished with you bud.
Ive answered ya fifty times and you just keep putting up new posts asking why I dont answer the accusations Ive already answered....50 times.
Get lost.

How can you continue with this moronic style and expect to be taken seriously? I'm really worried about your future credibility on this board.

there is a clear differentiation in the way that an evolutionary atheist and a theist validate their beliefs. Evolutionary atheists and theists use completely different paradigms, and the evolutionary atheists paradigm is often characterised by verifiability and attempts at objective determination of facts, whereas the theist's paradigm is NOT verifiable and concentrates on subjective validation of belief.

Please illustrate to us how the atheist can validate a something from nothing belief; or an infinite digression of cause and effect events to explain the origin of the cosmos. If you cannot,then your entire house of cards fall because your verifiability claims are totally discredited.

and you have not made one cogent arguement regarding differentiation of either differently beliefed theists, or of differentiation between the paradigms of belief of a theist or a non-theist[/i].

Again my friend the burden of proof is on you since you are suggesting a postulate that has never been observed in the history of mankind.

All of your vain attempts to slay your opponent with an avalanche of rhetoric and repetitive chants has simply made you look fooolish.

Please read up on what more educated atheists have argued and get back to me with some substance. I am eagerly awaiting for you to explain the functional societal difference between current atheistic ideologies and historical religions. So far, you insist on discussing methodology. My specific challenge to you is to : PROVIDE A FUNCTIONAL DISTINCTION AND DIFFERENCE.

If there is no functional difference you will be forced to compare the usefulness and benefits of atheistic ideologies with that of religion. That is an entirely different subject and one I wholehartedly look forward to discussing with you.

27

Atheists are a cult

by gravedancer in

jw
friends

i have seen that statement quite a bit in the past few days.. why do people believe that's true?

Perry

Eric,

The quote I presented was a synthesis of much of the reasoning that is presented on this board, and not a direct quote from an individual.

It is entirely possible to compare atheistic ideologies and theistic ones. Many athesists here prefer to avoid this kind of rigorous comparison and simply play games that lead one to the erroneous conclusion that athesistic ideologies do not need to be examined beause they essentially do not exist.

Their reasoning goes like this: Because you cannot prove that God does not exist then surely ideologies based on atheism don't exist either.

The complete absurdity in such reasoning does a insurmountable dis-service to more educated atheists who would never stoop to such laughable reasoning.

27

Atheists are a cult

by gravedancer in

jw
friends

i have seen that statement quite a bit in the past few days.. why do people believe that's true?

Perry

ROFL...... You are proving my theises with more verbose rhetoric.

I never said you had an agenda; however by insisting to attack me and not respond to clear logic causes one to search for answers for the avoidance.

Other that a reference to mispelled words, what have you really offered to pursue truth?

27

Atheists are a cult

by gravedancer in

jw
friends

i have seen that statement quite a bit in the past few days.. why do people believe that's true?

Perry

gravedancer said:

Perry, do you accept the definition of the word cult as postulated by West & Langone. I hope so because I look forward to discussing the effects of religion on peoples lives vs the effects of atheism on people's lives. I propose that as soon as we have clearly defined what a cult is that we get into that discussion.

This is the problem with uneducated athiests: They want to compare apples and oranges. A meaningful discusion could be had discussing athiesm and thiesm. Likewise a meaningful discussion could be had between athiestic ideologies and religion.

But your attempt to compare a cult with athiesm is absurd. Atheism is an undemonstratable position, so is theism. Athiestic ideologies attempt to create a template for behaviour and development just as religion does, a cult can be either athiestic or theistic but will always involve an ideology or a religion.

My well educated athiestic friends always provide provacative discussion on their views and never resort to a scrambling of issues and definitions you present for consideration. Likewise, my Christian friends do the same. Maybe its because we are already friends and don't feel the need to convince each other for some agenda purpose.