logansrun

Joined

• started 268 topics
• posted 2,970 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by logansrun

• 
  18

  Do Skeptics Draw Conclusions?

  by Blueblades in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  .

  i say, they do.what do you think?.

  blueblades

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  Truly scientifically minded people only draw tentative conclusions.

  B.
• 
  38

  Are people intrinsically good or bad?

  by eyeslice in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  one of the things we were constantly taught as jws was that the vast majority of the world are intrinsically bad; wicked enough to warrant destruction at armageddon.. last xmas, a film "love actually" (sentimental tat really but who says we don't need sentimentality occasionally) was based on the idea that everywhere people are in love and being loved.

  also, a couple of tv documentaries shown recently in uk, michael palin's 'himalaya' and ewan mcgregor's 'long way round' had these intrepid travellers visiting remote corners of the earth.

  it was striking just how friendly and helpful people can be to strangers.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  There is very little "isness" when it comes to human beings. All of us behave in manners which can be classified as "good" or "bad" by certain cultures. Even if a person's behavior is "mostly bad" does not mean that the person is "all bad" since surely they do some things that are "good" (please notice quotation marks).

  Categorizing humans as "good" "bad" "intelligent" "dumb" "talented" etc. are all futile attempts to label someone that is a process (for we are all processes in time) as if they were a static thing-in-itself.

  Bradley
• 
  25

  Who are these idiots? Re: Scott Peterson Trial

  by IronGland in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  these arent family members according to the caption, they're just people waiting outside the courtroom when the sentence was announced.

  their faces show they have some major emotional investment in this trial.

  the man even appears to be praying.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  people just don't want to see another wife and baby killer walk away free, like OJ did.

  Yeah, good thing Peterson isn't a black superstar worth gazillions in cultural capital.

  Bradley
• 
  25

  Who are these idiots? Re: Scott Peterson Trial

  by IronGland in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  these arent family members according to the caption, they're just people waiting outside the courtroom when the sentence was announced.

  their faces show they have some major emotional investment in this trial.

  the man even appears to be praying.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  ROFLMAO!

  I saw that picture in the Chicago Tribune and thought how incredibly stupid those people look. Haha!

  B.
• 
  38

  NOW WHAT

  by jt stumbler in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ok. i'm almost finished with c.c.

  really good published evidence against the gb.

  i don't think i will become an atheist as many have but where do i go now.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  Don't discount anything. Try reading John Shelby Spong's book, "Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism."

  Bradley
• 
  38

  Unless you believe in "spirit(s)" you cannot be "spiritual"

  by logansrun in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  upon a fine conversation with a good forum member last night i started to think about the meaning of the word spiritual.

  many people, including some agnostics and atheists, use this word with some regularity.

  "i'm not religious, but i am spiritual" is something even i have said.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  I've been thinking about this a bit more, and I guess I understand why theists might feel that non-believers are co-opting their language by describing ourselves as 'spiritual.' By using the word to signify psychological rather than other-worldly phenomena, we are implicitly dismissing the significance--or existence--of the supernatural.

  But I think that an analogy exists in the use of the word 'God'. For centuries, mystically and philosophically minded believers have used the term 'God' to describe an entity far removed from the deity of more literal believers. Aristotle's God and Descartes' God and the God of the Qabbalists are as different from the petty tyrant of traditional Judeo-Islamo-Christian thinking as atheists' spirituality is from believers'.

  The only similarity between Aristotle's (or John Shelby Spong's) God and Yahweh is the psychological function they serve. So if liberal belivers are allowed to call their non-personal deity 'God' on the basis of psychology, I say that non-believers can call our connections to the transcendent 'spirituality' on the same grounds.

  To be really accurate, perhaps non-believers in a personal God should refrain from using the word "God" to describe non-theistic entities and processes. Your example isn't really a refutation of my argument, but an extenstion of it! God! Bradley
• 
  22

  Are You a "Better" Person Since You've Left The Witnesses???

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  honestly, are you a better person now or were you a "better" person when you were a jw?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  Of course, in actual fact there are no "good" or "bad" people, only people that do mostly "good" or "bad" things.

  B.
• 
  27

  MUST you respond in a thread?

  by logansrun in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i've come to a new conclusion about myself, this board and communication in general: i don't need to respond, elaborate, explain or otherwise defend myself to other people.

  most notably on this board, of course.

  here's my reasoning: .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  Of course, Bryan. (But rarely!)

  B.
• 
  27

  MUST you respond in a thread?

  by logansrun in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i've come to a new conclusion about myself, this board and communication in general: i don't need to respond, elaborate, explain or otherwise defend myself to other people.

  most notably on this board, of course.

  here's my reasoning: .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  I've come to a new conclusion about myself, this board and communication in general: I don't need to respond, elaborate, explain or otherwise defend myself to other people. Most notably on this board, of course. Here's my reasoning:

  1) When an obviously ill-informed or biased poster -- such as a JW apologist, creationist, dogmatic religionist or nutty Republican -- directs their hogwash to me, it is extraordinarily unlikely that my response will change their opinion.

  2) It is unlikely that third-party observers really care one way or the other whether I respond, especially if it's the same old shit we see bounced around on this forum on a daily basis -- arguing over the silliest things like whether the flood actually happened, etc.

  3) It seems to me that responding/explaining/cajoling to a forum opponent is more a matter of making ourselves (illogically) feel good over the fact that we have some common sense and the other party is a screwball. I just don't feel the need to "prove" that I'm right anymore.

  4) Typing up responses takes a lot of time! Why should I waste even fifteen minutes of my precious life trying to convince someone I've never met, and likely never will, of their folly?

  Therefore...

  5) I choose only to respond to more interesting, philosophically stimulating or novel topics. Or anything having to do with tits.

  Bradley
• 
  22

  Are You a "Better" Person Since You've Left The Witnesses???

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  honestly, are you a better person now or were you a "better" person when you were a jw?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  No, I'm not a "better" person, and I'm not a "worse" person either. I do what I perceive to be better things and I feel more content and fulfilled.

  B