KS_Rockstar |
May 27 2007, 12:13 PM
Post
#16
|
General Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 4,920 Submissions: None Joined: 5-January 04 From: Miami Florida USA Member No.: 2,476 |
isnt this a book list?????? |
Tordenskiold |
May 27 2007, 12:30 PM
Post
#17
|
Lieutenant-General Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 3,080 Submissions: None Joined: 29-October 03 Member No.: 456 |
It was until Stargazer turned it into another atheist/liberal crusade -_- |
StarGazeR |
May 27 2007, 02:50 PM
Post
#18
|
Brigadier Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 2,386 Submissions: None Joined: 26-April 05 From: USA Member No.: 16,150 |
QUOTE(Tordenskiold @ May 27 2007, 11:30 AM) You are a liar sir. You will not find one single post of mine in this thread in which I fail to recommend a book. Can you make the same claim? Hmmmm? You should read: (IMG:http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0312144776.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.gif) Now please stay on topic and take your anti-religion/neo-con crusade to an appropriate thread. This post has been edited by StarGazeR: May 27 2007, 02:51 PM |
Tordenskiold |
May 27 2007, 04:14 PM
Post
#19
|
Lieutenant-General Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 3,080 Submissions: None Joined: 29-October 03 Member No.: 456 |
QUOTE It gives a subtle yet revealing look at why atheists hate and attack both religion as well as the religious and find a constant need to find outside sources to reaffirm their faith, or lack there of, as the case may be. Don't call me a liar. I realize there are special rules in this place - but calling people liars is a cheap shot and totally uncalled of. I don't care how desperate you are, the least you can do is have some respect for your fellow site members. You Americans are so proud of the so-called "freedom of speach" - apparently it only applies for people who share the same opinion as yourself (like that little nice person you linked to earlier who wanted to blow up the New York Times because they don't share her extreme views). Shame on you Paul, I thought you where a greater man than this :angry: I guess I was wrong - which makes me kind of sad :( You may use your little childrens book as an excuse - but don't make the mistake of taking me for a fool. I think the above quote quite obviously shows your real agenda here. I suggest you read this (IMG:http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/5147F1YJE2L._SS500_.jpg) QUOTE How Cults Manipulate People Many people now agree that cults frequently psychologically manipulate their membership to ensure conformity and control. Steve Hassan's excellent book "Combating Cult Mind-Control" is a great starting point. The following points come from numerous sources. Not all of these are found in every cult but enough of them are found in most cults to make them very frightening places that inflict deep psychological damage on their membership. 1. Submission to Leadership - Leaders tend to be absolute, prophets of God, God Himself, specially anointed apostle, or just a strong, controlling, manipulative person who demands submission even if changes or conflicts occur in ideology or behaviour. 2. Polarized World View - The group is all that is good; everything outside is bad. 3. Feeling Over Thought - Emotions, intuitions, mystical insights are promoted as more important than rational conclusions. 4. Manipulation of Feelings - Techniques designed to stimulate emotions, usually employing group dynamics to influence responses. 5. Denigration of Critical Thinking - Can go so far as to characterize any independent thought as selfish, and rational use of intellect as evil. 6. Salvation or Fulfillment can only be realized in the group. 7. End Justifies the Means - Any action or behaviour is justifiable as long as it furthers the group's goals. The group (leader) becomes absolute truth and is above all man-made laws. 8. Group Over Individual - The group's concerns supersede an individual's goals, needs, aspirations, and concerns. Conformity is the key. 9. Warnings of severe or supernatural sanctions for defection or even criticism of the cult - This can go so far as to apply to negative or critical thought about the group or its leaders. 10. Severing of Ties with Past, Family, Friends, Goals, and Interests - Especially if they are negative towards or impede the goals of the group. 11. Barratrous Abuse - Some cults use "cult lawyers' to sue ex-cult members and critics often using fabricated evidence and causing finacial stress by repeated trivial law suits. The cult's aim is not so much to win the lawsuit (though they often do) as to harass and intimidate their critics into silence. Cult Conversion Techniques Conversion into a cult is usually the result of two interacting dynamics. The first is the personal vulnerability of the potential recruit. This vulnerability may be enhanced by, but not limited to, transitional situations such as divorce, abuse, job or career change, moving away from home or leaving college, an illness, or death of a loved one. The second dynamic are the tactics used to convert, indoctrinate (brainwash) and hold the members. Some groups attempt a radical and rapid conversion over an intensive week-end or week, such as The Forum or Scientology. Others have a more subtle approach which may take weeks or months, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses. The following are techniques of unethical thought reform and mind control: The importance of cognitive dissonance Any person will act so as to reduce conflict between their thoughts, their emotions and their behaviour. When these things are at odds with each other a person experiences 'dissonance" (the opposite of harmony). Cognitive dissonance is when what a person knows is right is at odds with either what they feel is right or what they are doing. Cults quickly move to control four key areas of a person's life during the conversion process - Behaviour - by intense involvement in activity and isolation from others. Behaviour is closely prescribed and carefully supervised. Emotions - a new recruit is often "love bombed" and greeted enthusiastically and told they are very special. They are made to feel that everyone in the cult loves them and that "nothing could be wrong with such a loving group of people". However this does not last. Emotions are sent on a rollercoaster and the only hope of emotional stability is total conformity and pleasing the cult leadership. Thought - indoctrination, extended "teaching sessions", memorisation of cult dogma, "auditing sessions" where inner secrets are revealed and thought processes exposed - all are a part of attempts at thought control so that the thought life of the convert is taken up entirely with the group. Information - isolation from peers, TV, radio, newspapers, (often labelled as "Satanic") and careful control of associations ensures that little or no material critical of the cult reaches the new recruit during the conversion process. The combination of all these factors make it very likely that if the new recruit stays in the cult for any length of time they will come to believe in it utterly. We are not as objective as we like to think and when all these powerful forces combine ven very intelligent people will be "converted" but not by God. A Quick List of Nasty Practices 1. A Focus on felt needs, defects, with exaggerated promises of fulfillment. 2. Rigid Control of Time and Activities - Often physically and emotionally draining activities leaving little time for reflection, questioning and privacy. 3. Information Control - Cutting off or denigrating outside sources of information especially if it is critical of the group. This can also include misrepresentation and information overload. 4. Language Manipulation - Ascribing new "inside" meanings in ordinary words or the use of an exclusive vocabulary subtly moving a person to want to become an insider. 5. Discouraging Critical, Rational Thought and Questions - For instance, comments like, "Satan is the cause of all doubt; he wants to keep you from the Truth", or, "one must move beyond the cognitive left-brain and get in touch with one's higher self, his right-brain, intuitive self for true knowledge". 6. Instruction and Repetition in Trance Induction Techniques - These include progressive relaxation, chanting, hypnosis, meditation, trance states, guided imagery or visualization, deep breathing exercises, all of which make a person highly suggestible, often unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality, and can cause psychopathology such as relaxation induced anxiety. 7. Confession Sessions - Promoting full disclosure of all secret sins, thoughts, temptations which can become a powerful tool to manipulate, blackmail, and emotionally bond people to the leader or group. It is actually a depersonalization or stripping of the inner self , a forced submission to the group. 8. Guilt, Fear - Weapons used to maintain group loyalty, suppress questions and defections. 9. Control of Sexuality and Intimacy within the Cult - This may extend to marriage decisions (Moonies), sexual relations, promiscuity (Children of God), group sex (New Age Therapy groups), child sex, adultery, and polygamy (Branch-Davidians). 10. Excessive Financial Obligations - More and more money is needed to attain higher degrees of spirituality (Scientology), or complete submission to God requires one to give up everything to the group or leader (pp. 26-29). The more points of ideology and conversion methodology that are in place, and the degree of intensity of their application is proportionate to the effect and damage of mind control. These factors tend to make normal evangelism, or even dialogue, much more difficult. Therefore, some people have looked to deprogrammers or exit-counselors to help break the mental head-locks of their loved ones in an attempt to rescue them from the cult. Can an Orthodox Christian Group Get Like This ? Yes they can!!! Just because the theology is straight down the line does not mean the behaviour will be. I was in a mission society that in a particular place under the influence of a leader with a great deal of charisma and authority became "cultic" for a year or so. That has been corrected but much damage was done. Some Christian groups start off great -like the "children of God' and end up utterly wrong and evil. The church needs strong leaders, but they must always be accountable to Scripture and to other wise Christians. We must allow people to be critical, to think for themselves and to understand scripture freely apart from the dictates of any leader. we must allow a great deal of emotional and intellectual freedom and renounce our desires to control others if we are to have healthy churches where people rejoice in the Truth. This post has been edited by Tordenskiold: May 27 2007, 04:33 PM |
StarGazeR |
May 27 2007, 08:10 PM
Post
#20
|
Brigadier Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 2,386 Submissions: None Joined: 26-April 05 From: USA Member No.: 16,150 |
QUOTE(Tordenskiold @ May 27 2007, 03:14 PM) QUOTE It gives a subtle yet revealing look at why atheists hate and attack both religion as well as the religious and find a constant need to find outside sources to reaffirm their faith, or lack there of, as the case may be. Don't call me a liar. I realize there are special rules in this place - but calling people liars is a cheap shot and totally uncalled of. Your wrong sir(or just lying again :lol: ). It is not a cheap shot or uncalled for if it is true. You recommended a book and then you gave your oppinion of the Catholic church from the persective of an atheist. I then recommended a book and gave my opinion of atheists from the persective of someone who believes in God. Then you accuse me of launching an off topic crusade against atheists liberals when in in fact the only difference between our two posts was perspective (and the books :lol: ). That was a lie, a clear and blatent lie, which makes you a liar even if it was just this once( and now possibly twice :rolleyes: ). Today you might not be a liar anymore. I don't know. Is this the last time? :lol: QUOTE(Tordenskiold @ May 27 2007, 03:14 PM) I don't care how desperate you are, the least you can do is have some respect for your fellow site members. You Americans are so proud of the so-called "freedom of speach" - apparently it only applies for people who share the same opinion as yourself (like that little nice person you linked to earlier who wanted to blow up the New York Times because they don't share her extreme views). I don't see how calling you a liar for lying is disrespectful to my fellow site members and I also don't see what Ann Coulter has to do with this or how me calling you a liar infringes on your right to free speach. You are still free to say whatever the hell you want and I am free to call you a liar if you lie again. QUOTE(Tordenskiold @ May 27 2007, 03:14 PM) Shame on you Paul, I thought you where a greater man than this :angry: I guess I was wrong - which makes me kind of sad :( How good a person I am depends on who you ask. I have my opinion of myself. Others have their opinion of me. I will be who I am, say what I believe, and stand behind it regardless of anyone's opinion. QUOTE(Tordenskiold @ May 27 2007, 03:14 PM) You may use your little childrens book as an excuse - but don't make the mistake of taking me for a fool. I think the above quote quite obviously shows your real agenda here. Well of course it does. I am a conservative. I have never attempted to keep that a secret. My agenda is to explain what I believe and why I believe it and to explain my point of view to people if I believe they have been steered in the wrong direction. I have never kept that a secret either. I don't lie to manipulate people or have any secret con game or scam that I am trying to play on people. I am not an atheist and I have never kept that a secret either. So what "real" agenda does that statement that I don't deny making and proudly stand behind expose? You should read this one. :thumbsup: ......and try to stop lying. :lol: (IMG:http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/5619/truthac0.jpg) |
Tordenskiold |
May 28 2007, 02:02 AM
Post
#21
|
Lieutenant-General Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 3,080 Submissions: None Joined: 29-October 03 Member No.: 456 |
OK, if that's how this is supposed to run. This will be my last post here, I will not sit around to be insulted by admitted drug users (yes, that is you Paul) who I can never tell is under the influenze or not. Good luck and have fun. |
StarGazeR |
May 28 2007, 11:59 AM
Post
#22
|
Brigadier Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 2,386 Submissions: None Joined: 26-April 05 From: USA Member No.: 16,150 |
QUOTE(Tordenskiold @ May 28 2007, 01:02 AM) OK, if that's how this is supposed to run. This will be my last post here, I will not sit around to be insulted by admitted drug users (yes, that is you Paul) who I can never tell is under the influenze or not. Good luck and have fun. QUOTE(StarGazeR @ May 26 2007, 05:45 PM) Because we are right, you can't shut us up, and it pisses you off. Liberals always lose in the arena of ideas. The only hope you have is to discredit or insult your opponent. :lol: This is a good book too. (IMG:http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41igW7MWBtL._SS500_.jpg) |
Roark |
May 28 2007, 03:31 PM
Post
#23
|
Lieutenant-General Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 3,182 Submissions: None Joined: 31-January 05 From: Fairfax, VA, USA Member No.: 13,816 |
To return to the off-topic: Atheism is just as much a faith system as Christianity. The belief in nothing is not substantiated by science, no more than the belief in God. But atheism is the belief that humans are capable of knowing everything. It's the belief that everything can be explained down to scientific principles such that no theological mystery is necessary. I do not have the stomach for such self-importance. I am an agnostic. I follow the tenets of Christianity, because I don't see being a "good person" as a commodity of religion. I don't have the faith necessary to believe in God, but I admire the people who do. I have read the Bible and recommend it to all people, even those who do not believe in God. (IMG:http://www.presbyterian.ca/bookroom/images/bibles/holy_bible.jpg) |
Orion_Zorn |
May 28 2007, 06:27 PM
Post
#24
|
General Group: Silver VIP Member Posts: 4,173 Submissions: None Joined: 28-December 03 From: Upstate NY Member No.: 2,212 |
@roark, I haven't seen Atheism as you describe it. Richard Dawkins has said that he wouldnt say for certain God doesn't exist... because it can't be proven. He says its just very very unlikely that there is a God. And I havent ever seen anything about 'humans knowing everything.' I used to say I was agnostic until i saw Dawkins. if his version of Atheism isnt what people commonly think of atheism, then Ill start saying Im agnostic again. This post has been edited by Orion_Zorn: May 28 2007, 06:28 PM |
Orion_Zorn |
May 29 2007, 07:13 AM
Post
#25
|
General Group: Silver VIP Member Posts: 4,173 Submissions: None Joined: 28-December 03 From: Upstate NY Member No.: 2,212 |
QUOTE Atheism is just as much a faith system as Christianity. i dont think 'faith' is the correct word. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith QUOTE belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. infact i think i would go as far as to say they are opposites. QUOTE The belief in nothing is not substantiated by science, no more than the belief in God. the belief in an infinite amount of things are not "substantiated by science". does this make it reasonable to beleive in these 'possibilities'? unicorns, elfs, fairies, dragons - none of them are "substantiated by science" to be untrue and so would you happily accept someones belief in unicorns until it was disproven. surely the proof should be brought by you, for you to beleive in it rather than it be assumed to be true until disproved. QUOTE But atheism is the belief that humans are capable of knowing everything. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism its not, no. QUOTE It's the belief that everything can be explained down to scientific principles such that no theological mystery is necessary. i agree, this is a general description of an atheist but i think 'belief' is a bad word. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief QUOTE something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat. belief suggests you have no evidence. where as infact, most atheists, would not 'beleive' in something until they had the evidence. QUOTE I do not have the stomach for such self-importance. as you have stated conjecture so will i. i dont have the stomach for such self-importance to presume we are here for a 'higher purpose' or for us to be anything other than a product of our enviroment. but that is opinion and neither here nor there. |
Roark |
May 29 2007, 09:06 AM
Post
#26
|
Lieutenant-General Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 3,182 Submissions: None Joined: 31-January 05 From: Fairfax, VA, USA Member No.: 13,816 |
Faith and atheism are opposites? Dictionary.com: atheism: "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." faith: "belief that is not based on proof" Prove to me that God doesn't exist and I'll concede the point. There is no evidence for unicorns, hence your analogy. But there IS evidence for the existence of God, which is why He isn't has dismissable as unicorns and dragons. Explain to me the creation of the universe, the creation of life, the creation of mind, and the creation of morality, and I'll concede the point. If you don't have answers, then yes, you are relying on faith that there is no God. QUOTE Atheism is the belief that humans are capable of knowing everything. It's the belief that everything can be explained down to scientific principles such that no theological mystery is necessary. These are the same statement, I'm not sure how you agreed with one and discounted the other. |
Orion_Zorn |
May 29 2007, 07:03 PM
Post
#27
|
General Group: Silver VIP Member Posts: 4,173 Submissions: None Joined: 28-December 03 From: Upstate NY Member No.: 2,212 |
QUOTE Faith and atheism are opposites? Dictionary.com: atheism: "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." faith: "belief that is not based on proof" Prove to me that God doesn't exist and I'll concede the point. i think you missed my point. something is not assumed to be true until disproven. i.e. you take a leap of faith to beleive in god in exactly the same way i would be taking a leap of faith in beleiveing there is a unicorn - let me quote bertrand russel(he puts it far better than i can): QUOTE many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. this is, of course, a mistake. if i were to suggest that between the earth and mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my essertion provided i were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. but if i were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, i should rightly ne thought to be talking nonsense. if, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to beleive in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the inquisitor in an earlier time. QUOTE There is no evidence for unicorns, hence your analogy. But there IS evidence for the existence of God, which is why He isn't has dismissable as unicorns and dragons. Explain to me the creation of the universe, the creation of life, the creation of mind, and the creation of morality, and I'll concede the point. of course i cant explain these but this is not evidence. its simply trying to explain away fascinating questions with supernatural hocus-pocus. heres are some quotes from richard dawkins arguing against intelligent design (im not saying you support this theory but i think what you are arguing has the same principles - if u dont have the answers now, lets just assume there is a god (because that does offer all the answers you need, no matter if they are right or wrong): QUOTE a creationist speaking 'the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog is irreducibly complex. no part of it would do any good at all until the whole was assembled. bet you cant think of a way in which the weasel frog 's elbow could have evolved by slow gradule degrees.' if the scientist fails to give a an immediate and comprehencive answer, the creationist draws a default conclusion: 'right then, the altrnative theiry, "intelligent design", wins by default.' notice the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right. needless to say, the argument is not applied the other way round. we are encourged to leap to the default theory without even looking to see whether it fails in the very same particular as the theory is alleged to replace. ... gaps, by default in the mind of a creationist, are filled by god. the same applies ti all apparent precipices on the massif of mount improbable, where the graded slope is not immediately obviouse or is otherwise overlooked. areas where there is a lack of data, or a lack of understanding, are automatically assumed to belong, by default, to god. ... the logic turns out to be no more than this: 'i [insert own name] am personally unable to think of any way in which [insert biological phenomenon] could have been built up step by step. therefore it is irreducibly complex. that means it is designed.' ...... the reasoning that underlies ' intelligent design' theory is lazy defeatists - class 'god of the gaps' reasoning. i have prwviously dubbed it the argument from personal incredulity. ... those people who leap from personal bafflement at a natural phenomenon straight to a hasty invocation of the supernatural are no better than the fools who see a conjuror bending a spoon and leap to the conclusion that it is paranormal. btw, im not neccesarily saying you dont want to investigate these issues which are not yet understood by science, but to use them as a justification for something supernaturel, as a sheild to protect your beliefs... QUOTE These are the same statement, I'm not sure how you agreed with one and discounted the other. at last i can give a short answer here without the need for quotes your second point says everything can be boiled down to logic and scientific principles the other states we are capable of understand these principles i.e. there are rational explanations (nothing to do with the supernaturel, though they may seem so complex we might atribute it to the supernatural) but because a dog cannot understand these explanations they arnt out there. |
KS_Rockstar |
May 29 2007, 10:03 PM
Post
#28
|
General Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 4,920 Submissions: None Joined: 5-January 04 From: Miami Florida USA Member No.: 2,476 |
re-naming this topic to faith flame wars part 75....... starting a new topic that lists good books. |
StarGazeR |
May 29 2007, 10:57 PM
Post
#29
|
Brigadier Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 2,386 Submissions: None Joined: 26-April 05 From: USA Member No.: 16,150 |
QUOTE(KS_Rockstar @ May 29 2007, 09:03 PM) Well go ahead and do it then. Don't come in here talking siht about " I'm gonna start a new book thread" and then just wander off to make waffles. Make the damn thread. .....and try showing up from time to time and saying hello or something. ....and read this book. It might help you figure out how to make the new thread. (IMG:http://www.enchantedfantasies.com/BeadsAndThreadsBook.jpg) This post has been edited by StarGazeR: May 29 2007, 11:00 PM |
sKiLLfrEE |
Jul 13 2007, 01:48 AM
Post
#30
|
Field-Marshal Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 6,487 Submissions: None Joined: 4-May 04 From: Germany Member No.: 5,674 |
Since we discuss religion a lot here @ ViP forums I suggest following book to read: Nathan the Wise, written by Gotthold E. Lessing. It gives the "answer" on the question which religion is the true one. :thumbsup: |
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 04:01 PM |
Site Designed and Coded Originally by Robo.
© MasterOfFreedom Sanctuary Networks LLC . All Rights Reserved.
© MasterOfFreedom Sanctuary Networks LLC . All Rights Reserved.