“I talk to God.”
“I talk to God on my telephone.”
Why is the first “normal”, but the second one is “delusional”? Why does the addition of a telephone make the situation different?
In this thread, as in most threads on religious topics, the Christians have been willing to answer questions and the atheists, for the most part, haven’t. I’m willing to go on answering questions but I feel it’s only fair that you folks answer some questions of your own. I asked four in post #82. A few people have tackled my third question, but no atheist has been willing to answer questions one, two, and four. If you answer those questions, then I’ll answer yours. Sound fair?
Maybe people haven’t answered your questions because they’re not valuable? I’m not of the opinion that religious people are crazy, they’re irrational and hold onto delusions, but that’s not the same. I’ll atheist-answer your questions though.
Not at all. It makes you a person who made an irrational decision. Hardly crazy.
Obama isn’t crazy. He’s a person who made an irrational decision. Hardly crazy.
Complete and utter nonsense as I posted earlier.
It is definitely caused by indoctrination in some cases. No one is born Catholic or Seventh Day Adventist. They have to be lied to by authority figures in order to accept the tenets of the religion. Even someone who seeks out religion on their own is grabbing onto something that has a cultural framework. In our culture Christianity has the patina of credibility, so people give it authority when seeking the comforts of a religion. Although, in reality it’s as whakadoo as Scientology or Pastafarianism.
-
In a sense. Not “insane” but “hard to understand why anyone would do that”
-
I hope and pray Obama is lying about his Christian Beliefs. If he’s sincere, I have a hard time understanding why he would do that.
-
I don’t understand this question.
-
I’m skeptical.
Science can answer most questions like that just fine, it’s just that people don’t want the answers it provides. And religion doesn’t “answer” them, it just makes things up. As for what religion is for; religion is for spreading and reproducing, like any other infectious disease.
I’m not sure what you mean by being raised atheist - I suspect that you mean that you were raised without belief in God (possibly that you were raised with antitheistic tendencies?).
Does that make you crazy? IMO, no - it makes you wrong, but not crazy. 
Revtim doesn’t necessarily link it with craziness either - he links it with ignorance. I’m not sure I’d go that far. It seems to me that some theists (you, perhaps?) arrive at their conclusions based on a number of factors. Some being reasonable arguments, provided one accepts crucial premises.
I do not think Obama is crazy…Well, more crazy then any other politician and I don’t think they are crazy for being religious…I think they are crazy for being politicians… 
I think it’s disingenuous to suggest that multiple universes are equal to ‘non existent’ things. Further, I think it’s disingenuous to suggest that the reason people put forth multiple universes is based on faith - which is what you seem to be alluding to by slying saying that such models are without evidence. There might not be any empirical evidence for them (at least none that concrete establish the predicted models), but the reasons for accepting them are not simply out of faith. They are accepted by physicists because they accord to cosmological models and models of reality.
To equate an atheist suggesting a multiverse based on mathematical potential models is the same as an infinitude of ‘gods’ is an absurd comparison.
One of those papers is a paper on cults and the other on the economics of religion. I did not really read them - can you perhaps glean the relevance to your point 4? I’ve already said that I do not think that religious belief is caused by mental illness (well, maybe some is). As to indoctrination - one paper is on brainwashing, which is not the same as cultural indoctrination. I do think that one’s culture plays a role in ones religious belief. Is it an all encompassing force? No, not some cases (most?).
- I’d rather talk more in the abstract and not directly get into personal opinions of another poster. That’s more fodder for the pit.
- If they are choosing to legislate/govern/judge claiming to be some conduit or proxy of an allmighty being, then yes, they are crazy or delusional. See: Bachmann, Rick Perry.
- Unable to even see a full abstract on the first site. I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove with the second site, but it doesn’t have a lot to do with the question you’re claiming it does.
Well, somewhere along the way you bought into a delusion. Conveniently, it’s a delusion shared by many others, so the adjustment is minor.
I’m not American, so he’s not my president, nor did I vote for (or against) him. I’m assuming his form of the delusion is relatively mild and will not interfere with his Presidential duties, plus there’s the possibility that in order to mollify others who have the delusion and advance his political career, he has had to make a show of being a Christian (or exaggerate the extent of his Christianity).
My personal hope is that the vast majority of people who say they are religious aren’t all that religious, in the sense that they won’t let scripture guide them into doing something which is too obviously harmful. Sure they’ll vote against gay marriage and whatnot, out of a vague uneasiness caused by their childhood indoctrination, but for the most part they don’t think about it all beyond the occasional lip-service, and look distrustingly at those who claim to be more devout and directly guided in their day-to-day lives by their religion.
Ah ha, you’re cute, DT. Don’t ever change.
But science has answered questions like why we are. It’s due to evolution, migration, reproduction, ecology, and a very long series of events. It’s a complex and not complete answer, but it’s not a cop out like “cos god said so”. The major difference is that religion allows the user to rest on the laurels of a lame explanation and not think any further. The question has been answered, so why ask or investigate further. “God did it” is pure intellectual laziness.
I remember as a little kid asking why I had to clean my room. My mom replied “because I said so”. That’d be the religion. The science is that she felt better in a clean house, needed to get me out of her hair, and wanted a complete set of dishes in the kitchen.
To quote Tim Minchin:
Also, your description skips out the need to subjugate the followers of said religion to create laws based on fictitious rationale. See: Leviticus.
Your link, while interesting, doesn’t get at society vs society conflict. Did your average society without much religion in the past outcompete its rivials? Obviously not. However, was there ever such societies? It could be that human predisposition to religion is, I don’t know…a ‘side affect’ of some other very beneficial attribute? Perhaps. However, I am not convinced that religion isn’t an evolutionary advantage…yet.
I think, however, it has to be one or the other or there would be no religion.
If we can do it with philosophy, then why bother with religion?
Ah ha, you’re cute, DT. Don’t ever change.
[/QUOTE]
Acting self righteously patronizing doesn’t make your post a refutation of what I said. Perhaps I should return the favor with a condescending head-pat and a comment of “don’t worry your pretty head, little girl.”
Not really. The systematic killing of unbelievers explains any genetic tendencies towards religion just fine. And all that the existence of religion demonstrates is that religion is good at surviving and reproducing; not that it’s any good for us. That’s why I used the flu as an analogy.
Go right ahead, it’s not that different from what I’d expect of you, anyway.
First off, I have to say that in debates like this, you represent the best on the “pro-religion” (for lack of a better word) side.
Is it flatly contradictory, though? For centuries after Democritus we lacked the ability to test for the existence of atoms. The history of scientific research seems to me to be filled with examples of hypotheses that at first could not be tested. They nevertheless were based on observation.
I think that we have to draw a disctinction between cannot-be-tested-so-far or has-not-been-so-far-but-can-be on the one hand and untestable in principle on the other. If we can establish the latter beyond reasonable doubt, only then do we have something beyond the scope of science.
And if someone has the opinion that something is untesatble in principle, they should be consistent in presenting it as an interesting idea only.
You may well be right about how Dawkins and others are muddying the waters in the debate.
- Jack
Yes, we all know how you feel. Historians disagree with what you say, though.
And if you’re going to agree with the claim that the Iliad has just as much historical validity as the Bible, then the onus is on you to substantiate that. For my part, I’m willing to side with the opinions of professional historians. They may disagree on the extent to which the Bible should be believed as an historical source, but they most certainly do not dismiss it outright. Obviously, not all of them accept it as God’s Word, but as I pointed out earlier, they accord it a great deal more credibility than the Iliad.
You’re quoting Cecil Adams out of context. In that post, he was referring specifically to the Jewish Exodus. Perhaps you were unaware of this, but there are 66 books in the Protestant Bible, the Book of Exodus being only one of them. The Bible covers a great deal more than just the events of the Exodus, as even skeptical historians would be quick to acknowledge.
So no, you can’t take that one statement from Cecil and legitimately insist that it somehow proves your claim regarding the entire Bible. I think you know this full well.
stpauler, it’s obvious that you’re not concerned about facts or evidence. You’re not going where the evidence points (e.g. how historians regard the Bible and the Iliad, respectively). Instead, you and brocks are starting with your desired conclusion – namely, that the Bible holds as much authority as the Iliad – and trying to argue backwards to support that claim. (In fairness though, I must admit that brocks was far worse in that regard, given that he initially chose to compare the Bible to JK Rowling’s deliberate works of fiction.)
And they disagree with what you say as well. So there we have it. I’ll debate without proof blah blah blah.
No matter what book one picks, it’s never going to be exact apples for apples. I have linked proof to the OP’s claim re: the Iliad. And you’re playing some bullshit games by claiming that I’m stating that they’re on the exact same level. It’s comparing two brothers. There are going to be similarities and differences. But go on and continue to move goal posts and then don’t offer proof again. It’s not debate, it’s just opinion at this point. And I opine you haven’t given an ounce of credence to your opinions.
That’s funny, did I claim to speak for all 66 books of the Bible? Cuz I didn’t. There’s proof up there I didn’t claim that. Nor will I waste my time dissecting all 66 books in one post. But since you conceded my point re: Exodus, great. One down.
Really? The Bible isn’t a work of fiction? I’d say it’s more of a work of shoddy fiction than anything that JK Rowling has produced. At least Rowling had a more consistent editor who properly translated the books. Look at the Bible and how it has been mistranslated time and time again.
So, JThunder, please give proof of its historical accuracy. Each AND EVERY of the 66 books. I want peer verified proof and not just one link. It’s the scrutiny you applied to my post and if you can’t post that, then it’s safe to say that we can dismiss all of your posts.
Hey bud, this is your claim. The gauntlet’s down. Otherwise, you can join me and admit that your posts are full of empty thoughts.
No they don’t. The enslavement in Egypt and the Exodus for example never happened. Nor did Genesis.
Oh, and I can’t WAIT to see how historians agree on the events of the book of Revelation. That should be an interesting twist.
It’s rather late to say this, but it has to be said.
All through the thread, whenever anyone weighs the question of “crazy” the grand assumption is that being crazy is a bad thing.
Now, that’s not only a prejudiced view, it just plain nuts!