Religious Absurdity And Modern Psychological Baggage.

[The Atheist]

Don't it is dangerous. I went to a doctor and he told me I had diabetis after all exams, but I told him that would prefer the following answer:
You may have diabets, but you paid for all exams for nothing,because it is dangerous to know so I give you the possibility of a flu.
So, do not leave, it may sound that you are rude and full of yourself because as it seems, not knowing nothing is reason enough to doubt from those who spent 40 years of their life working hard to know a little.

Excellent!

There comes a point where I know further discussion is always going to be fruitless, and therefore somewhat frustrating.

I find the time to get to that point shortens as the calendar turns.

(I'm keeping that masterpiece)

on the other hand, maybe some religious people do not hear strange voices but pretend they do, because they believe this is what's supposed to be happening when you are a believer and don't won't anyone to think that God does not talk to them.

Ask any stage hypnotist about that effect.

Maybe another possibility is just that they want to hear it so badly, they do - since it appears to come from in their own head anyway, I'd see that as pretty likely.

The thing is, voices in your head isn't necessarily a sign of madness or god.

It just depends what the voices have to say.

[SleepyWitch]

leaving the question of insanity aside, does religious faith actually require each and every follower of a particular religion to hear the voice of their deity? e.g. does it say in the Bible that every Christian needs to be able to hear the voice of God, i.e. a distinct voice rather than just a vague awareness of God's existence / presence? this is genuine question, not a rhetorical one. maybe one of our Christian friends could provide some quotes from the Bible about this?
the way I see it, "hearing voices" is a kind of proof of the existence of God. Still leaving the question of insanity aside, I have trouble with this idea, because Christians keep telling atheists that faith means believing without a proof. Strictly speaking, this should not only include scientific evidence and proofs of the existence of God, but also non-scientific ones, like miracles, voices, epiphanies, God's sending Jesus to earth as his "son". All of these seem to be proofs of his existence, even though they are not scientific proofs. So this whole business of hearing voices seems contradictory to me. Maybe God has better things to do than to talk to each and every single one of his followers and just expects them to believe in him anyway? maybe those who hear voices have more doubts about their faith than they care to admit? or maybe they feel pissed off because God neglects them and they want more attention from him?

[Drkshadow03]

SleepyWitch: That's now two posts where you referred to religion broadly (religious faith and religious people) when quite clearly you're talking almost strictly about Christians. I can't think of too many Jews that I know who claim to hear G-d's voice in their head.

[SleepyWitch]

SleepyWitch: That's now two posts where you referred to religion broadly (religious faith and religious people) when quite clearly you're talking almost strictly about Christians. I can't think of too many Jews that I know who claim to hear G-d's voice in their head.

thanks, that's interesting. I referred to Christianity because it's the religion I know most about (although I don't know very much about it), I didn't mean to generalize.

[JCamilo]

Even among Christians, Joannas Darcs are rare. Religious systems are full of rituals, preparations, etc. and most of them do not accept just anyone can hear God, as you must be a special one, be part of iniciation (hence the concept of priest), ect.
Even Christians are not going to accept just anyone (Catholic Church them is very carefull with that) and the "hear voices, talked with god, etc" can also be a figure of speech used to reffer to other external signals. Religious systems are born from very poetical sources with mythological backgrounds, so we have not indulge the same mistake some religious people to of taking everything as literal.

[Wintermute]

that's a good idea, I'll give it a try. but I tend to think religious people in the U.S. are more "extreme" on average than over here, so it may take me longer to find someone willing to admit that they here voices (other than their own).

Oh Sleepy, I'm a goober! I didn't notice you were in Germany and made the typical American assumption that you were in the US. My apologies.

I lived in Norway for 13+ years in the 60's and 70's. And yeah, I agree with you. Europeans, including the catholic south tend to be much less zealous. I can only wish that the US will eventually grow up.

Cheers,
Doug

[Mr Hyde]

When religious people do not talk to god on a personal basis some instead will construct god to be a grand metaphor or symbol with other worldly powers which they describe as spirituality or the spirit. Either way religion is about the unseen as being real through mystification or hypnosis.

It requires blind faith and assumptions without physical substance.

And that is all I will say on the subject. ( As I'm sure the religious will come and tear me apart for my heresies.)

There comes a point where I know further discussion is always going to be fruitless,

Now you know why I've been quiet in this thread.

[SleepyWitch]

Even among Christians, Joannas Darcs are rare. Religious systems are full of rituals, preparations, etc. and most of them do not accept just anyone can hear God, as you must be a special one, be part of iniciation (hence the concept of priest), ect.
Even Christians are not going to accept just anyone (Catholic Church them is very carefull with that) and the "hear voices, talked with god, etc" can also be a figure of speech used to reffer to other external signals. Religious systems are born from very poetical sources with mythological backgrounds, so we have not indulge the same mistake some religious people to of taking everything as literal.

in this case, it would be interesting to see whether "hearing voices" is more common among Christian denominations that oppose episcopal hierarchy, such as the Quakers or Presbyterians. We don't have these in continental Europe, so that might explain the difference to the U.S.
on the other hand, if "hearing voices" is more common in all denominations in the U.S. it might just be a general characteristic of American culture. As in, any (American) Tom, Dick and Harry who has painted a picture or written a poem may call himself a "painter" or a "writer", even though he may be an accountant by profession. so in the same way, each and every church-goer wants to be a prophet???

[The Atheist]

in this case, it would be interesting to see whether "hearing voices" is more common among Christian denominations that oppose episcopal hierarchy, such as the Quakers or Presbyterians. We don't have these in continental Europe, so that might explain the difference to the U.S.

I'm not even in USA, but I'd stake a very large bet that more charismatic/evangelical church members hear god than other christian denominations.

I had an interesting discussion with a load of christians on this subject some time back and an Orthodox priest was asked how he replied when he heard the voice of god. He said "Satan, get thee hence!", believing people who actually hear god are doing no such thing.

Each to their own.

[Countess]

I'm a Hegelian, so I see both sides of the fence (possible/necessary). What I want to know is the psychology behind hating people with religious beliefs to the point of labeling them "mad". 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?
Should we label them "mad"? Who is to say whether they are mad or not?

[The Atheist]

I'm a Hegelian, so I see both sides of the fence (possible/necessary). What I want to know is the psychology behind hating people with religious beliefs to the point of labeling them "mad".

Who's done that?

I think that recognising the similarities between some kinds of mental disorder and hearing voices and claiming them to be gods is fair without being judgemental.

No hatred involved.

You do know people other than Hegelians can often see two sides of an argument as well?

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?

You mean the way theists hate atheists? How the theists' handbook states that god will damn families of unbelievers "even unto the fourth generation", despite atheists being no danger to an omnipotent god? Or the way that atheists are perceived in USA as the lowest grouping on the trust scale?

Yeah, that stuff annoys the hell out of me too.

You really do see both sides of an argument, because you clearly can't mean that the other way around - that atheists hate theists who just want to live according to their consciences. I'm sure you don't mean that, because, as I've already said, atheists don't usually hate theists, but more importantly, theists certainly don't live their lives according to their consciences, they live it according to the purported desires of an invisible entity. Surely, you wouldn't suggest that theists harm no-one, either; that being demonstrably wrong. (murder of abortionists should suffice for evidence)

Why is that so threatening to some?

If you're talking about threat, then atheists do indeed have fears - especially in USA, where murders of atheists because they are atheists has definitely happened while the reverse has not. Also, when a much larger group (US theists) class the other (US atheists) as untrustworthy and undesirable simply on the basis of non-adherence to a doctrine, I think fear is an appropriate response. It's stuff like that that makes me exceedingly glad not to be living there.

As to what threat atheists might be to theists, I have no idea, unless they're so weak in their own belief that they can bolster it by attacking atheism.

Should we label them "mad"? Who is to say whether they are mad or not?

Refer above - I don't think anyone has.

[Pendragon]

leaving the question of insanity aside, does religious faith actually require each and every follower of a particular religion to hear the voice of their deity? e.g. does it say in the Bible that every Christian needs to be able to hear the voice of God, i.e. a distinct voice rather than just a vague awareness of God's existence / presence? this is genuine question, not a rhetorical one. maybe one of our Christian friends could provide some quotes from the Bible about this?

No direct voice that I know of, an awareness of presence.

the way I see it, "hearing voices" is a kind of proof of the existence of God. Still leaving the question of insanity aside, I have trouble with this idea, because Christians keep telling atheists that faith means believing without a proof. Strictly speaking, this should not only include scientific evidence and proofs of the existence of God, but also non-scientific ones, like miracles, voices, epiphanies, God's sending Jesus to earth as his "son". All of these seem to be proofs of his existence, even though they are not scientific proofs. So this whole business of hearing voices seems contradictory to me. Maybe God has better things to do than to talk to each and every single one of his followers and just expects them to believe in him anyway? maybe those who hear voices have more doubts about their faith than they care to admit? or maybe they feel pissed off because God neglects them and they want more attention from him?

Long list just to say "Maybe, maybe not" which even I admit is how I feel. I may believe I have heard God speak, yet Voices can't reassure me, since I am bi-polar and might think I have went from bad to worse. Do I actually need proof? Not always, and when I do, faith dictates to believe anyway, so I require no proof. Do I feel neglected? Sometimes, but this isn't "the sweet by and by" but "the nasty now and now." You have to learn to deal with it, and play the hand you are dealt. Do I get ticked, to use another word? Yeah, and perhaps I just don't always understand the entire point. Happens to all of us. Maybe people hear God speak, maybe not. I believe the Hebrew word is something like timshel "it may be".

God Bless,

and Atheist

Righto, mate! Throw a shrimp on the barbie, Bob's your Uncle.

Pen

[The Atheist]

...and Atheist

Righto, mate! Throw a shrimp on the barbie, Bob's your Uncle.

Pen

Cheers!

(Although throwing shrimp on the barbie is strictly Australian, and it's prawn, not shrimp. Good effort, though! )

[Drkshadow03]

Who's done that?

I think that recognising the similarities between some kinds of mental disorder and hearing voices and claiming them to be gods is fair without being judgemental.

uhm, the original post said the following:

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. 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!

What is the difference here? 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. 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.

If you read the original post very closely it never once talks about religious people hearing voices, but instead compares a general population who hear voices with the AVERAGE religious person. The original post states quite bluntly that "religious beliefs should be placed in the same class as mental sickness."

Since The Countess didn't quote anyone so as to be replying to anyone's point specifically your "who's done that?" response is an odd given the opening post of this thread.

You mean the way theists hate atheists?

How did The Countess's excellent points about a general group of people (whoever they may be since she never used the word "atheist" once in the post) hating those "who merely wish to live their lives according to the dictates of their conscience" by practicing their religion come to be about you again exactly?

[The Atheist]

The original post states quite bluntly that "religious beliefs should be placed in the same class as mental sickness."

Correct; which hardly relates as saying they're "all mad".

How did The Countess's excellent points about a general group of people (whoever they may be since she never used the word "atheist" once in the post) hating those "who merely wish to live their lives according to the dictates of their conscience" by practicing their religion come to be about you again exactly?

It didn't.

I'm actually reasonably sure she was meaning theists rather than atheists, which I why I answered it as I did. I'll await clarification from her rather than you though.