Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Atheist
That there is a similarity between psychosis and "hearing god". (Funnily enough, the same thing has recently been shown graphically with MRI scanning)
It's not the same as saying they're all mad, however.
Okay. Now I see how you read it. The only thing I can suggest is that you re-read the original post closer. It never once talks about "hearing G-d." It specifically compares psychosis with BELIEF in religion.
1) Why is it that when some people fervently believe in ghosts or when they follow commanding ‘voices in their head’, these people are treated as delusional, crazy or even psychopathic? These people are given medical treatment and brain-chemical balancing drugs in order to manage their mental illness.
2) Yet when people profess the most intense beliefs in certain other things no one has ever really seen, such as demons, Allah, God, angels, heaven, hell, and so on, these people are treated with the greatest of reverence and social respect and even made into leaders and wise gurus who become rich from the donations of their faithful followers!
Commentary:
Group 1: Psychotic people who follow voices in their head or believe in ghosts, etc. By what you’re talking about people who “hear G-d” would fall under here.
Group 2: Any religious person who believes in G-d, demons, angels, heaven, or hell. In other words, the average religious person of any of the major world religions.
Conclusion: The author is explicitly comparing psychotic people who hear voices in their head with ANY religious person who believes in G-d, demons, angels, heaven, or hell, regardless of whether they hear the voice of G-d or not. In fact, he didn’t even MENTION religious people who hear the voice of G-d in this paragraph at all. Let me repeat. He makes NO MENTION of HEARING G-D, but only about “intense belief.”
The Next Paragraph:
What is the difference here?
Comment: Apparently he sees no difference between “people [who] profess . . . intense beliefs . . . in [G-d]” (i.e. the average Theist) and people who hear voices in their head. He is again not talking specifically about religious people who hear voices in their head. In fact, he still hasn’t mentioned them.
The rest of the paragraph reads:
The fantasies and delusions are equally foolish whether it’s the belief and obedience to a psychotic voice in the head or an imaginary deity residing in some magical place no one can see.
Comment: He starts by talking about fantasies and delusions ambiguously implying them to the next two clauses:
1) belief and obedience to a psychotic voice in the head.
2) Belief in an imaginary deity residing in some magical place no one can see.
Comment: note that he separates these two options with an “or” implying that he is not talking about people who “hear G-d,” but rather two separate concepts. Concept 1 is someone who believes and obeys a psychotic voice in their head, while concept 2 applies (removing his rude assertions) pretty much applies to any Theist. Once again he compared such people to a belief and obedience to a psychotic voice in the head. Once again no mention yet of religious people who hear G-d in their head, but rather he is talking at the moment about two separate groups.
He follows this up with:
Religious beliefs should be placed in the same class as mental sickness or any other serious psychological disorder that degrades the quality of life and the individual's ability to deal with reality.
Comment: In case we are still confused about his intent, he explicitly states here that any religious beliefs (that he earlier gave examples of as belief in G-d, hell, heaven, etc.) should be classified in the same class as mental sickness or any other serious psychological disorder.
Quite clearly he is NOT strictly talking about religious people who “hear G-d” as being equivalent to psychotic people. In fact, he hasn’t mentioned them at all. He is talking about ALL theists or even anyone with spiritual beliefs of some sort, seeing their beliefs as equivalent to psychosis.
The only way one could possibly wiggle out that he isn’t implying that religious people are “all mad” is to make a lame attempt to separate the act from the individual. See, the guy only things religious beliefs is a kind of mental sickness, it’s the act of believing these things, not the actual person Him or herself.
As I already said, that’s a pretty lame way to defend his offensive and absolutely wrong-headed remarks.
Quote:
Add this to your comment:
What makes people hate so dearly those who merely wish to live their lives according to the dictates of their conscience while harming no one? Why is that so threatening to some?
In the case of both comments, there is a serious category error, which is why I was disingenuous the first time.
Well, it's good to know you were being disingenuous.
Quote:
Neither statement is even close to the truth. I know of no atheists kept awake by religious belief in others and I don't know anyone who hates people who wish to just live their lives according to doctrine. That's why I presented the alternative of non-theists being on the receiving end.
This is a strawman. Neither she nor I ever once used the word, "atheist." I said, "some people" and she also used the word "people." I am only referring to groups who fit under that umbrella. Most likely anti-Religious folks. If you or your friends don't fit that statement the reason is probably because it wasn't geared towards you. As I stated before I really have no problem with atheists.
But quite clearly many anti-Religious folk do take issue with the fact that some people have religious belief and believe in G-d. (see the opening paragraph of this thread where the dude thinks religious belief should be classified as a mental illness).
Secondly, my statement was obviously hyperbole. I don't think people literally can't fall asleep so the literalness is irrelavent. What I meant was they get a bug up their @ss. Not only do we have evidence in the opening of this thread of this, but I imagine that any number of the religious people here can tell you about interactions with anti-Religious folks that rubbed them the wrong way. I imagine this is one of the reasons they fight back with atheists on this board. Most have no problem with someone not believing in G-d; the problem comes when someone mocks their religion or their beliefs in the most rude fashion possible.
It is a fact that some people can't seem to be happy unless they consistently attack religion.
Quote:
The category error is that many theists just wish to just live their lives and leave others alone.
Since she never once mentioned the word, "atheist" why do you assume she was talking about atheists?
Quote:
Far from being content to just worship, theists are wont to tell atheists that they and their children are going to burn in hell for not believing in their particular sky-daddy. That's not really keeping it to themselves, is it?
I don't believe in hell actually, but thanks for equating my religion to Christianity and Islam! It's not like I don't see the anti-Religious folk do that all the time.
Also your categories are still confused. Christians tell everyone that they and their children are going to burn in hell, not specifically atheists.
Quote:
Then we get to Fred Phelps, Benny Hinn, Bert Potter, Brian Tamaki, the late and completely unlamented Jerry Falwell, et al, young earth creationists, anti-abortionists, suicide bombers and the stoning of adulterers and rape victims: these things exist because of belief in gods. That's not really lying down and allowing the world to go on, is it?
You're confusing certain extemist elements with the whole. Most religious people that I know just want to be left alone to go about their business.
Secondly, you're making a large assumption that these things wouldn't exist without religion. Certainly many of these things are justified, even perhaps caused, by extremist interpretations of religion, but it is still a large assumption to sugges that these things wouldn't exist without religion. It's perfectly possible in a world without religion that some other means would have been used to justify these horrific things.
Quote:
If there were any part of your or the Countess' comments which made any sense or which portrayed life as it works, I wouldn't have answered the way I did in the first place.
Except our comments made complete sense, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
Quote:
If christians were prepared to live their lives according to their doctrines and not seek to propagate their beliefs, knock on our doors, demand creationism be taught in schools, demand that women bear children of rape and incest by not allowing abortion, and all of the other things which christians often do, I wouldn't go around calling myself "The Atheist".
::shrugs:: I am opposed to all those things as well, except the first. I consider the propagating of religious beliefs to be one more discourse in the free market of ideas. They have every right to try and convince others to become Christians, as annoying as that can sometimes be. You also have every right to shut the door on their faces, ignore them, or add your own discourse to the conversation about how annoying you find Christian proselytizers or Theists in general. In turn, the Theists have every right to critique your critiques right back at you. You then have the right to critique the critique of the critiques, and so on . . . :D
