Religious Absurdity And Modern Psychological Baggage.

[Drkshadow03]

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

Uhm, it seems to be pretty much saying the same thing to me no matter what way you split it. But tell you what. I was just looking through the comments and saw you responded the same way to someone else.

What do YOU think the original quote is actually saying?

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.

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 rest of the posts context can be understood after reading the material I emphasized. She was talking about how some people for some reason can't seem to sleep at night because there's someone out there who happens to believe in G-d! ::gasp::

[The Atheist]

Uhm, it seems to be pretty much saying the same thing to me no matter what way you split it. But tell you what. I was just looking through the comments and saw you responded the same way to someone else.

What do YOU think the original quote is actually saying?

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.

She was talking about how some people for some reason can't seem to sleep at night because there's someone out there who happens to believe in G-d! ::gasp::

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. 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.

The category error is that many theists just wish to just live their lives and leave others alone. If that were true, I doubt atheists would even exist in any kind of organised resistance as they do now, let alone lose sleep over it. 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?

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?

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.

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".

Note: I am not saying that all christians or theists act in those ways, but it's clear that in many places, a majority does.

[Redzeppelin]

Note: I am not saying that all christians or theists act in those ways, but it's clear that in many places, a majority does.

By what method is the "clearness" of your assertion verified? Personal experience? Statistical study? Published polls? Or is this simply a generalization that fits your view of Christianity?

And, is your generalization any fairer than this generalization: "Not all atheists are as hostile and aggressive towards Christianity as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, but the majority are"?

Thanks

[Drkshadow03]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 . . .

[Redzeppelin]

::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 . . .

This is 100% correct: Christians do not share their beliefs so that others can believe as they do simply for the sake of being in agreement; for the Christian, the choice to reject God is a slow-motion form of suicide - it leads to certain death. For the Christian, telling nonbelievers to believe in God and avoid hell is the equivalent of saying "Don't do drugs," "Don't drive down that road - the bridge is out!" "Don't drink bleach - it will kill you." We share to save - not so that everybody thinks like we do. Remember: we seriously believe that choosing God is choosing life - choosing to serve self is death (if not now, definitely later).

And, as I said before: if the atheists are right - neither of us will know better - because death is annihilation; but if the Christians are right, both of us will know - because we each get an "encore."

[JCamilo]

Yes, Religious propaganda have never been related to material power. THey never killed, oppressed, tortured non-believers. They do not have political lobbies trying to input their dogmas to everyone in basic school. We didn't had any religious war - To-day! They do not have access and control to major mass communication channels. That was all an Orwelling nightmare.

[Drkshadow03]

Yes, Religious propaganda have never been related to material power. THey never killed, oppressed, tortured non-believers. They do not have political lobbies trying to input their dogmas to everyone in basic school. We didn't had any religious war - To-day! They do not have access and control to major mass communication channels. That was all an Orwelling nightmare.

Who are you responding to? And what are you trying to say exactly?

[JCamilo]

Mostly you that seems to be very naive about the influences of ideas and how discurse can be used as oppression and how it was used by every human with power and your generalization about what a religious person is.
Nobody shut the door open if the Church is using their dogmas to make poor people not to use condoms, or safe sex. It is one example and made by religious people. Who are just humans as anyone.

[Drkshadow03]

Mostly you that seems to be very naive about the influences of ideas and how discurse can be used as oppression and how it was used by every human with power and your generalization about what a religious person is.
Nobody shut the door open if the Church is using their dogmas to make poor people not to use condoms, or safe sex. It is one example and made by religious people. Who are just humans as anyone.

Oh? What did I say that you found particularly naive? What generalization did I make about religious people?

I'm pretty sure I challenged a few generalizations about religious people. I'm pretty sure you made quite a few yourself, but I don't believe I made any.

[JCamilo]

I am pretty sure I have no generalization.

"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"

This is the naive part. Sure, free market of ideas, owning a huge tv channel. You can just turn your back of it.

[Drkshadow03]

This is the naive part. Sure, free market of ideas, owning a huge tv channel. You can just turn your back of it.

You could always not watch the 700 club if it bothers you that much. There's only like a bagillion other channels having nothing to do with religion to choose from.

[JCamilo]

as I talked about naiveness: free option is manipulated. That is why several millions are paid to tv (radie, jornal) etc writers, adversting, etc. They know techniques of discuss and strategies of exposition to deal with the reaction of the public even the expect I will zap the channels.
Plus, you are thinking of countries like US. For brazil, until 90's there is only a handful of tv channels and even now just about 20 open to all public. And the church is behind a few of them, so their influence behind opinion producers is reasonable.

[Redzeppelin]

Yes, Religious propaganda have never been related to material power. THey never killed, oppressed, tortured non-believers. They do not have political lobbies trying to input their dogmas to everyone in basic school. We didn't had any religious war - To-day! They do not have access and control to major mass communication channels. That was all an Orwelling nightmare.

You would be hard-pressed to find any institution today without some black-marks on its record. As always, those who dislike Christianity can find plenty of evidence to slam it; unfortunately, God doesn't force those who claim the title "Christian" to actually be good people - just like the reality that not all cops are good, not all lawyers honest, not all doctors caring, etc, etc, etc; however, none of those exceptions seems to negate the reality that cops, lawyers, and doctors do much more good than harm in this world.

As well, much of what you say above consists of generalizations and the worst stereotypes about what Christians do/are (because the term "religion" is too broad a brush to paint with - many things are included under the title "religion" that do not advocate what Christianity does - so be specific in what you attack, please).

[The Atheist]

By what method is the "clearness" of your assertion verified? Personal experience? Statistical study? Published polls? Or is this simply a generalization that fits your view of Christianity?

Did you miss that I said "christians and theists"? Are you also seeking to play the persecution card?

To verify what I said, find out how many countries stone adulterers and rape victims, then add in countries where abortion is banned for religious reasons and toss in several parts of USA which have tried to force creationism into the classroom. For heaven's sake, you're a fan of Behe, you know very well that these things have happened.

No generalisation involved, those things are factual - in many places.

And, is your generalization any fairer than this generalization: "Not all atheists are as hostile and aggressive towards Christianity as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, but the majority are"?

Thanks

Red, you can make whatever generalisations you like, but as I've just explained, I didn't need to use any generalisations, what I wrote was demonstrably correct.

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....

Seems to me that our mild disagreement is two things:

1 Whether the article tries to say "all religious people are mad"

2 Whether it's deserved, or whether attacks should be made on religion.

In the case of #1, you think it does, while I think it doesn't. Maybe we're just srguing different interpretations what we're reading based on our own individual stances?

Not worth arguing about, from my seat.

I'm assuming by the "G-d" that you're Jewish? I've only ever seen that done by people of Jewish faith is why I ask.

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.

It's no strawman.

If people are attacking theists, I'd say it's 100% likely that they will be atheists, since she specifically referred to people not holding those beliefs, and as we've discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, atheist = "does not believe in god", so people attacking theists must surely be 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).

To me, this seems like the persecution card. If you are, as I suspect, Jewish, you should have a great grounding in what it feels like to actually be persecuted because of cultural association. (Not you personally, but Jews have been persecuted on and off for quite a large number of centuries.)

The number of atheists who attack religion simply because it's religion is incredibly small. Richard Dawkins and his 300 fans, plus the bloke who wrote the article in the OP, I imagine.

On the other side of that, check out Red's attitude to it all:

And, as I said before: if the atheists are right - neither of us will know better - because death is annihilation; but if the Christians are right, both of us will know - because we each get an "encore."

On one hand, it is a reminder - completely unnecessary - that his brand of theism sees atheists sent to hell. There may or may not be an element of schadenfreude in the comment, but it's something which atheists hear with startling regularity. You talk of hatred, well what kind of hatred does it require to to suggest that an entire family is going to go to hell because someone thinks gods are childish? I don't know whether you live in USA, but it's an extremely common response to atheists in that country and they probably get sick of it.

I can forgive them the odd harsher-than-necessary commentary on christians.

Even in our delightfully secualr land, I have a horror story. My kid was at high school as a senior last year. He told me how groups of Samoan christians would go around his school in search of atheists and if they ever found one, would beat the crap out of them. Fortunately, most atheists are smart and when asked by eight 120-kilogram (280lbs) Samoans whether they believed in god or not, were smart enough to hand out a little white lie.

Now, please tell me wherever such a thing would happen in reverse.

I must say that I find it incredibly ironic, theists trying to play the persecution card.

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.

And I bet you the atheists would have as good or better stories themselves. I guess it's abit of tit-for-tat, but the theists did start it.



Maybe we should declare a cease-fire and see who gives in first? Theists stop preaching, stop protesting abortion clinincs, stop a whole lot of other stuff and atheists will leave them alone. What's your bet?

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.

Well, two prongs to that, I think; it's a handy form of written attack and because lots of atheists do see the premise of religion as outrageously silly, mockery seems an apt reply. Probably another case of tit-for-tat to some degree - childish vs childish?

I also haven't really seen much in the way of attacks on this board. Crikey, some places I go...

It is a fact that some people can't seem to be happy unless they consistently attack religion.

Nah, that's going a bit far.

Since she never once mentioned the word, "atheist" why do you assume she was talking about atheists?

See above, they have to be, don't they?

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.

No, I'm not confusing your religion with those, I just didn't separate it as the exception. See what I said about persecution before, though? You obviously at least see the bigotry.

I'll finish later, hit send in error.

[JCamilo]

You would be hard-pressed to find any institution today without some black-marks on its record. As always, those who dislike Christianity can find plenty of evidence to slam it; unfortunately, God doesn't force those who claim the title "Christian" to actually be good people - just like the reality that not all cops are good, not all lawyers honest, not all doctors caring, etc, etc, etc; however, none of those exceptions seems to negate the reality that cops, lawyers, and doctors do much more good than harm in this world.

Meh, no. That is why it is a gross generalization when someone claims that religious people are gentle and tolerant, because God does not force anyone doing anything. Since I am the one claiming you will find religious people doing the "Nicest" things ever not otherwise, you could just pretend you agree with me. (Someone who does all things that we condem are still religious people , either you say "religious" Or religious, since it is not your judgment that will made them be or not).
And I would hardly do any effort. Catholic church still condem people who use condoms. My father cann't marry a second time because Catholic church wont accept it since for them he would still be married with my mother, despite the fact they do not tolerate each other anymore. The open channel (not public) that fights for the second place in Brazil belongs to the Universal Church (a protestant church) and they are filled with crime records accusations and only the protection brazilian law give to churchs keep them safely. A catholic doctrine (creationism) still pushed in US schools. Sarah Palin. Osama Bin Laden. India social lawyer based on religious status. The second biggest universitary system in brazil belongs to Catholic Church. The women who work for my father still kicked her daugher out of her house and humilated her in public because caugth her with her fiancee having sex before the wedding under the guindance of the priest of the church. It was not that hard.

As well, much of what you say above consists of generalizations and the worst stereotypes about what Christians do/are (because the term "religion" is too broad a brush to paint with - many things are included under the title "religion" that do not advocate what Christianity does - so be specific in what you attack, please).

Son, this is the internet. My posts are registered. Anyone can read them. You do not have to pretend you are answering to me, but if you do, at least talk about things I have not even said.
Saying that I used sterytypes about Christians when I did not even talked specifically (Or even used the therm Christian, something dumb when I mention religious war which would mean two different religious groups) about Christians is ridiculous. It is a bit ridiculous pretending to have an argument if you do not even bother to know or read what you are replying.