Abaddon

Joined

• started 167 topics
• posted 5,219 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Abaddon

• 
  50

  Cult Fighters are short sighted fools

  by proplog2 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the anti-cultists are narrow minded and uninformed to say the least.. you see a lot of this here.

  it is mostly a cover for irrational hatred.

  most religions organized in a way that they expected their members to take their beliefs seriously.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  proplog 2; Ah, I see your 'style'...

  It seems that is all you have to go on, as your failure to deal with issues raised in my responses to you seems to indicate you have little substance.

  No response to suggesting we avoid the term cult, as you seem fixated on this, and substitute it with high-control group.

  No response to the question;

  Are you saying it is bad to oppose high-control belief groups?

  No response to me musing on why you have avoided discussing the damage high-control groups do.

  No response to my pointing out any reasonable person would assign a level of conformity to each of the check-lists you take such issue with, rather than a 'yes' or 'no' answer.

  No response to the point made regarding your allegation that the majority of JW's are happy.

  No response to anything really, just posturing and evasion.

  If that were all, it would be bad enough, but;

  The anti-cult attitude pervades this board. One of the reasons is
  "victimology". Anti-cult rhetoric is comforting to ex-JW's because
  it assumes that, when they adopted and clung to their new religious
  life-style, they were not acting as free, responsible persons.

  Is just unfettered ignorance. You REALLY don't know what you are talking about, and are obviously running from internal issues in your attack on so-called 'cult haters'. You also ignore the situation of someone raised within a high-control group.

  Stop wasting bandwidth apologist poster-person.

  Engage in the debate or stop pretending you are credible, it's got old very quickly.

  Keep on rocking in the free world...
• 
  67

  God's image

  by Rex B13 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  we are made in god's image and he is a person, not just some invisible, omnipresent force.

  here is some more research for those who love to ask questions yet won't do the digging.. the bible consistently portrays god as a passionate individual, whose inner experiences of love, compassion, grief, delight, joy, peace, anguish, and moral outrage at atrocity dwarf ours in the extreme.

  the bible makes no apology for this, but rather exults in the living one, in contrast to the dead and lifeless idols that surrounded its writers.. one scholar put it thus:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  I notice that at least two people are using something like this as a signature:

  If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?

  When in hell was that a decent reasoned argument? I think being able to PROVE god exists would come before smart comments based upon the assumption of existence.

  For all the argumentation, the theists have yet to prove god exists. So effectively the above quotation says ‘Our theoretical god must be way smarter than us, so let’s just do what he says and forget about thinking for ourselves’.

  Yes indeed, god is a theory.

  Quite a cool one; if you don’t understand something (lightning, death, etc.), then the gods provide an ‘explanation’ for it; lightning is gods fighting, death is not really death, etc.

  But it is still a theory. Whenever theists discuss evolution they tend to throw the word ‘theory’ around like it is the ultimate rejoinder. But do they honestly pause and consider that the theory of god is less well supported (as far as actual material evidence goes) than the theory of evolution?

  But what about the good old common sense aspect? The creator of the Universe first of all doesn’t provide incontrovertible evidence of its existence. Yeah, I know the arguments theists come up with to explain this, but they are rubbish. Especially the one about god not proving he exists so we can use faith and exercise freewill. Then, as if ‘hiding’ his existence isn’t enough, we are told effectively ‘father knows best’. Yes indeed, god needn’t explain itself and can do anything it likes, and all you have to do to justify it is say ‘he’s bigger and cleverer than us’.

  A good teacher can help students come to an understanding. Ever been to a physics class where the lecturer sits on the table and says “This shit is WAY too complicated for you guys, m’kay? Basically the sun is big hot fire in sky makes flowers grow, m’kay?” A good parent doesn’t make rules without trying to provide some justification for them, so as to retain respect. A bad parent says “Don’t ask why, just do”.

  A bad teacher blames their students. A bad parent blames their children.

  So god is a bad parent and a poor teacher. Add that to the lack of evidence, and, well, you can see why I assert that god is an unproved theory with little evidence and little in the way of logical coherence.

  A bit like Santa Claus; no evidence other than the circumstantial stuff (presents), and unauthenticated sightings (grottos), and the math of him delivering all those presents in the time period allowed indicates he would vaporize from atmospheric friction.

  Why should I be interested in the alien conspiracy theories of a UFOlogist when they can’t even prove ONE thing? Why should I be interested in the god theories of a theist when they can’t prove ONE thing?

  Line your pretty arguments up in a row, they don’t mean a thing unless you can prove god exists.

  What? Oh, you mean you can’t? And no one has? What, not ever? Okay. Hold on to those beliefs all you like, I’m glad they give your life some meaning. But they’re not for me.

  Of course, this argument can be reversed, along the lines of ‘you can’t prove that god doesn’t exist/that evolution is right’. But as there is more evidence for the lack of god (from Hyena clitorises onwards) than for god, I don’t see what profit there is in it.

  Keep on rocking in the free world...
• 
  28

  ``Quality Time'' in Field Service: Fact or Fiction

  by Room 215 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  based on comments in various threads, it seems that many of you are acquainted with the various ``dodges'' jws use to strech out their field service time: foot-dragging, driving around on return visits from one far-flung end of the territory to the other, the skilful avoidance of contact with housholders, coffee breaks, etc.

  etc.. do you have any impression of how pervasive these time-wasting such practices are, and what proportion of the time reported by jws is actually bogus and not spent productively?

  or, put another way, how rare is is to encounter who just loves to go out and who uses his/her time efficiently from beginning to end?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  I never realised how much pioneers 'took the piss' with their hours, even when I Aux'd!

  Of course, I did what everyone else did it, but had this guilt complex about it in the three or four months I reg Aux'd.

  Nice to know I was 'normal' LOL!

  Keep on rocking in the free world...
• 
  93

  "Mire of atheism..."

  by Julie in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  :i welcome those of your quality of character and refusal to sink into the mire of atheism or deep cynicism, .

  i found these words to be so interesting.

  i have seen posts (albeit few) that discuss the bible and whether or not it is of god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  Scorpion;

  R U 4 real?

  Look at your OWN posts!

  Sept 19 2:42:46 'skeptism'.

  Sept 21 01:25:56 'skeptism'.

  Now, the use of the 'k' in place of 'c' is allowable in American English. But in BOTH American AND British English, the word ends in 'ticism', not 'tism'.

  Well done Scorpion, good job!

  Where did I say you had commited fraud? Where? Nowhere!

  What I said was "So, it is impossible to be sceptical about the authenticity of a skeleton without alleging fraud."

  You are being skeptical about the authenticity of a skeleton, therefore you are implying fraud. It might be qualified with a 'maybe', so you are saying 'maybe' someone commited fraud.

  But rather than having the strength of character to get off your ass and learn something, you are happy to say 'maybe its a fraud' WITHOUT ANY REASONING OR EVIDENCE.

  Pray with me!

  "Oh please god hear my humble prayer; please, just once, just once, give me a creationist, or an apologist for creation, who can take part in an arguement without me being lead to believe they don't know what they are talking about. I don't want to think that creationists are uneducated dumb asses, but they MAKE me feel that way Lord. One that could spell would be nice too. And one that could read a sentence and understand it and not say that I accused them of fraud when I did no such thing. That would mean a reading ability higher than my cat Lord. In the name of the fatter, the goat and the holy spigot, amen."

  I'm sorry to be sarcastic Scorpion, but you say you don't make spelling mistakes when they're staring you in the face. You say I accused you of fraud when I did no such thing. What do you expect me to do, congratulate you on your intelligence and education?

  Keep on rocking in the free world...
• 
  50

  Cult Fighters are short sighted fools

  by proplog2 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the anti-cultists are narrow minded and uninformed to say the least.. you see a lot of this here.

  it is mostly a cover for irrational hatred.

  most religions organized in a way that they expected their members to take their beliefs seriously.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  proplog2;

  You talk about loaded language and USE loaded language. You refuse to define a word, but instead count the number of letters and go on about what other people mean by it. I find you disingenuous and evasive.

  To prevent further fruitless posts where I ask you to define a word and you evade it, I will ask a simpler question you hopefully will answer in a straight-forward fashion.

  Are you saying it is bad to oppose high-control belief groups?

  By high-control group, I mean a group where there is strong conformiity to a list of identifiying characteristics; you are obviously familiar with this form of classification.

  When I go over such a list and examine a belief group, I do not simply regard it as a check-list, I actually do recognise there is a spectrum of conformity to each characteristic. I honestly thought that most people did this, along the lines of 'Q1, yup, they do that ALL the time, Q2, well, that's about half right, Q3, no, that's not often the case.'

  As such I would say that your use of the 'tool' provided in such a list is incorrect. You are the one imposing a dichotomous typology on a list that can provide a graded response for each characteristic in different hands.

  I cannot help but notice you choose to mention 'OBEDIENCE TO SINGLE LEADER'. I wonder if this is due to some apologistic tendancy on your part. It might show a tendancy towards black and white thinking (another high-vontrol group tendancy), as does your use of the list of high-control group characteristics discussed above.

  A high-control group does not in ANY way have to be dependant upon a single (charasmatic or otherwise) leader.

  As for your proposed study accross various religious and secular organizations, I think you are hiding from reason behind a cloak of scientifc enquiry, as you seem to have done from the start of this thread.

  You are refusing to even discuss the damage high-control groups do, waiting until the multitude of organisations that are obviously not 'high-control' are subjected to scrutiny that common sense indicates is unwarranted. You claim that until then it is a matter of opinion.

  Is it neccesary to scruntinise an entire town for characteristics of a murderer when someone is found standing over a corpse, holding a gun, with firing residue on their hands, a bullet from that gun in the corpse, and a stack of death threats written in the hand-writing of the person holding the gun to the dead person on the desk of the deceased?

  There are signs of a high control group that only someone with an agenda would wish to ignore. Or someone still influenced by or active in a high-control group.

  This is further indicated by your unfounded claim "the vast majority of the six million members are happy with their "religion"".

  You have the temerity to assert this after asking for a careful scientific analysis of whether the Boy Scouts of America et. al. are high-control groups? Where is your PROOF? Most of the people here were VERY unhappy as JW's, and know of others still there who are unhappy but haven't broken away. And the happiness of a member of a high-control group subject to quite stringent milleu control is a strange creature; be happy when you're meant to! It's a BLESSING, be happy! Smile at the brothers and sisters! Don't look at what the rest of the world is thinking or saying, you're right so be HAPPY!

  Given the above, I think that it is you who is talking "non-sense" (sic.), out of a mis-guided attempt at apologism for a high control group you probably have or have had ties to.

  Don't worry. Most of us have been through the stage you are going through now, the apologetic 'JW's are just another religion, they're very nice people' stage.

  If you conform to the experience of the majority here you will be playing a different tune in a few years time.

  All the best

  Abaddon

  Keep on rocking in the free world...
• 
  50

  Cult Fighters are short sighted fools

  by proplog2 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the anti-cultists are narrow minded and uninformed to say the least.. you see a lot of this here.

  it is mostly a cover for irrational hatred.

  most religions organized in a way that they expected their members to take their beliefs seriously.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  proplog2;

  With the greatest respect, get off the pot or shit; "I define "cult" as a word with negative connotations which is used primarily with abusive intent" - that is not ANY accepted definition of the word 'cult'. It might be true in some part; "a word with negative connotations" is appropriate, as high-control groups are viewed negatively due to the damage they can do to peoples' lives.

  But, once again you slip into 'loaded langauge'; again I point out this is a classic high-control group trick. "Abusive language" can be rightful condemnation. Is calling a paedophile "a sick pervert" abusive language or rightful condemnation? Cults are, by the definition many people apply to the word, harmful and damaging institutions deserving of exposure and condemnation.

  Saying Jehovah's Witnesses are a harmful cult is descriptive. Saying Islam is bad is abusive. BIG DIFFERENCE.

  So, quit being evasive; what do you mean by cult?

  Also, I made other points you have also evaded;

  You mix discussion of wide-ranging religious movements (Protestantism) with discussion of 'cults', when most people would not describe the former as the latter.

  You use unscientific loaded language (classic high-control belief group trick) in something that presents itself as a scientific arguement.

  You excluding from the discussion any mention of non-religious movements.

  Will you give any answer to these point and provide a meaningful definition of the word cult, or will you evade again?

  How honest are you?

  Keep on rocking in the free world...
• 
  93

  "Mire of atheism..."

  by Julie in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  :i welcome those of your quality of character and refusal to sink into the mire of atheism or deep cynicism, .

  i found these words to be so interesting.

  i have seen posts (albeit few) that discuss the bible and whether or not it is of god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  Ah, Scorpion, is there no begining to your powers of language?

  If one indicates scepticism (not skeptism) over the authenticity of something, one is saying one isn't sure if it is genuine. If it isn't genuine it is a fake. If it is a fake then fraud has taken place.

  So, it is impossible to be sceptical about the authenticity of a skeleton without alleging fraud.

  Very simple.

  Keep on rocking in the free world...
• 
  108

  Comments? Black Slavery

  by Naeblis in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  found this article interesting.

  what do you guys think?

  it seems to be opposed topretty much everything i've read so far.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  A tricky issue, especially so since I am related to Sir John Hawkins, who was the first Englishman to sail the middle passage (trade goods->Africa, slaves->West Indies/America, Spices & cotton->England).

  Basically where does responsibility start? With my Gx8(?) grandfather? With the owners of slaves in the US? With the Arabs who started the slave trade to supply their own and the Romans' needs? With the African chiefs who rounded up people for the slavers?

  An apology is avoided because of fears of this leading to financial responsibility. Resolving where the financial responsibility for reparations lies would probably make some black people rich, but they'd be lawyers.

  But there is a moral arguement for an apology, and not much of one for NOT making an apology, other than that sited above.

  However, looking at the huge financial assistance Israel gets, anyone gonna play dumb over why some Muslims think the US are biased?

  Keep on rocking in the free world...
• 
  20

  A voice from Sweden

  by Norm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the swedish paper expressen september 20, 2001.. we were ordered to become americans.

  the other night swedish fighter planes patrolled our skies.

  according to the defense ministry this was a link in our heightened readiness towards terrorism.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  Hi Norm;

  This guy is running an arguement to extremes. Yeah, the US have been involved in very morally dubious actions. It doesn't mean that they should say sorry after this is pointed out to them by someone driving planes into sky-scrapers.

  He also ignores the fact that whilst civilians have undoubtedly been killed in US military actions, they have not specifically been the target of US strikes authorised and planned at the highest level.

  He conveniently ignores any mention of the terrorism carried out against members of their own country by terrorists, e.g. women in Afghanistan.

  He is implying that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, living in a country where forced sterilization was government policy for anyone who didn't fit the template of perfect Swedishness by too great a margin.

  If he hadn't tried to be so clever he would have made a point.

  The point that he could have made was that injustice is injustice whether the blood is a Muslim's shed by Jew or a Christian's shed by Muslim, and that the only hope for long term world security is an assurance that injustice will not be tolerated, no matter who has the upperhand.

  nytelecom; Saab make rather good jet fighters as well as cars. You can tell them from other fighters by the specially-shaped cockpit canopies to allow for the pilot's helmet, which in true Viking style has horns on it.

  Keep on rocking in the free world...
• 
  44

  view of an American from Afghanistan

  by Tatiana in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this was posted on another forum by someone i talk to.....any thoughts on this post?.

  "this was sent to me from a friend and is supposedly written by an american that is from afghanistan.

  > i've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  Skimmer and his ilk seem to be ignoring the entire point of the post. I don't know if it's grief, anger, or poor reading skills.

  Ben Laden wants a World War between Islam and the West.

  Obviously, as the post says "something must be done about those monsters" - how that marries up with patio34 assesment of it as "manipulative, pity-seeking apologetic for attempting to escape any retribution" I don't know. patio also conveniently ignores the fact that unless care is taken any retribution will not be against those who are in any way guilty, but against civilians, which is what we are condemning Ben Laden for.

  The point the poster is making that the majority of Afghan's need liberating from a terroristic reigeme, that the country is a bomb site already, and that running in half-cocked will result in "200K American dead and 200Million Muslim dead" as jelly blithly puts it. Except it would be millions of Americans and Europeans dead, not just 200k GI's.

  The legitimate targets, if the Taliban government don't assist, are the Ben Laden training camps, anything upto 100,000 light infantry (mixed between the most experienced combat troops in the world and 12 year-old boys) armed with AK-47 and RPG's, minimal armour, minimal heavy artillery, 40 very old Scud missiles and air support that is more used to bombing villages in counter-insurgency operations than anything else. Of course how legitimate a target a brain-washed 12-year is is up to you...

  Now, of course, if you are smart and you use air power to eliminate the air support the Taliban have, eliminate the majority of the armour and artillery, AND provide massive support to Afghani ant-Taliban elements, then the Taliban reigeme will not last long.

  The Afghan war-lords are well aquainted to feudal machinations and power-plays, switching sides as circumstances and finances permit.

  Some smart war-lord is going to realise that in return for Ben Laden head he and his tribe will have a five-year ticket to riches between assuming control of a transitional government and UN-imposed free democratic elections.

  Do you think that the sudden ceasefire in Palenstine is an accident? The US government realise that as well as destabilising the Taliban and destroying what little millitary 'oomph' they have, they have to win a PR war with the rest of the Muslim world.

  Now, any assholes who want to act like terrorists to avenge the attrocities of 911 can think what they want. The fact more people would die, both American and Islamic doesn't seem to bother them or abate their blood-lust.

  Fortunately, it probably, hopefully won't happen that way.

  Keep on rocking in the free world...