Yeah, but you must admit saying there is an omnipotent being in the sky who made you, controls you, demands your worship and can send you to heaven or hell is quite a bit different from saying ‘I like Band X, and you like Band Y and are wrong’.
You can’t tell me that you don’t understand at all what Der Trihs is saying. If someone tells you he can see pink elephants dancing you may think he’s crazy, the only reason we don’t think Christians are crazy is because there are so many of them and there is a long history of craziness
Well, even you would have to say that 90%+ of people who ever existed are wrong, because they believed in mutually exclusive things. Even a religion with continuity, like Roman Catholicism, has evolved to the point that the average Catholic today would have been considered heretical 600 years ago.
As for me being smart, I think I am, but I think there are possibly millions of religious people who are smarter, by many measures. But I seem to be able to resist indoctrination better.
And I can only wish that my self-esteem was high enough that I didn’t even have to worry about why 90% of the people are wrong.
Also what if by crazy we meant non-rational (or irrational if you like), and by that we meant believed untenable, unprovable, illogical, and just plain silly things. Surely you could end with a majority of people in that definition, it may be that the medical profession wouldn’t call them crazy, but only because they are using ‘normal’ as their basis of judgment.
I hadn’t heard of that one. I may have to check it out. But your post did remind me of William James’s classic The Varieties of Religious Experience, which I highly recommend.
I don’t see how that’s relevant. Some of the happiest people in the world are in mental hospitals, reveling in how lucky and honored they are to receive direct communication from God.
You could say the same about practically any functioning human being, I’m afraid. One model of depression is that it is an unusually sharp perception of reality–that is, the inability to filter out the horrible aspects of our world and be happy regardless. Religion helps a lot of people do this. It is a delusion accepted willingly, even by many, if not most, high-functioning people.
That may be true, but there are different levels of delusion. If I think I’m Napolean then do I equate to someone who is happy even though life is actually pretty bad. I don’t know how the medical system handles this but there must be a difference.
Maybe what we’re trying to do here is to decide where on the scale of craziness believing in a Christian God, or any other deity for that matter, comes. Anyone care to make a scale?
Well, thinking oneself to be Napoleon (I’m assuming that’s who you’re really referring to) probably would throw a monkey wrench into activities like holding down a gainful job, paying the bills, and maintaining a healthy social network; you’d probably be too busy trying to raise an army to avenge Waterloo. Joining the Presbyterians doesn’t really have such a deleterious effect.
Heh, for me it was Thomas Paine, but different strokes and all that.
But if what you are taught is to reject reality, and you do it, then there is something wrong with your mental processes.
I see that a lot of people here favor “irrational” over “crazy,” but I don’t see an important difference. If you believe in preposterous things without any evidence, there is something wrong with you. And the amazing thing is that most Christians agree with me about that, because they feel the same way about Muslims or Hindus (though the PC ones won’t admit it).
The Bible is full of stuff that is provably wrong, testably wrong. Not just the historical innaccuracies and scientific howlers, but things any believer can test for himself. Jesus said, in several places and completely within context, that you will get anything you pray for. Not just healing sick people, but ANYTHING. Not some ambiguous “sign” in the next ten years that you are responsible for noticing and correctly interpreting, but instant, tangible results. And he gave at least two examples to emphasize that you didn’t have to ask for something noble or unselfish or what God wants, he said you could tell a mountain to cast itself into the see, or tell a fig tree to wither up.
That is demonstrably false, and it’s proven demonstrably false a million times a day, and yet people still believe. Ask them why they can’t show that Jesus’s promise is true, and they will mumble something about not tempting the Lord. How is it tempting someone to accept his unsolicited offer?
Oh, please. I’m not talking about their opinion about a piece of music. I’m talking about people who think that because I don’t believe that God created the universe in six days, that it took a snake about five minutes to ruin it, took God 4000 years to come up with a solution, namely mating with a virgin to have himself born, allowing himself to be tortured and killed, which resulted in no discernible difference in the amount of misery or pain in the world for the next 2000 years… but if I don’t believe that his death saved ME from ADAM’s sin, then I’m doomed to eternal torment. Oh, and I also have to believe that Jesus did all kinds of miraculous things, even though he gave specific promises which fail every day (see my previous post).
I don’t see why that’s the only meaningful definition, but suppose it is. Can you not make a case that people who say (as IIRC some congressman recently did) that there is no need to address environmental concerns, because God will take care of it, are not properly functioning in society? Are not the conservative American Christians who went to Uganda and inspired them to take Leviticus literally and enact laws calling for the death penalty for homosexuals a detriment to society?
So it’s “crazy” to believe the things that everyone you have ever known and trusted teaches you? That would assume that it is crazy to accept anything that you are ever taught.
Absolutely false and insulting on top of that.
That is an extremely insulting comment. If I’m taught that the Bible is the absolute Truth, then why would I consider it anything other than “evidence”? This is not rejecting reality, it is simply accepting the reality that is provided to me. It is offensive to suggest that something is wrong with my mental process for doing something we all know as “learning”. Unless you consider the mental process of a developing child to be “wrong” somehow. Maybe you are the one who is crazy to believe such things.
