Do you ever wonder why genuine believers are not classed as being mentally ill?

[Deicide]

I do all the time.

To show what I mean. Imagine the following.

A man believes that bejeweling his garden with topaz and amethyst in circular patterns and subsequently dancing and singing in his garden allows him to tap into the power of Xorax, the High One. He does this every Sunday and his wife worries because he has household chores to do and other obligations. This goes on for months and he is subsequently referred to a shrink on suspicion of being mentally ill.

Substituted:

A man believes that garnering his house with bibles in circular patterns and subsequently dancing and singing in his church allows him to tap into the power of Jesus, the Son of Man. He does this every Sunday and his wife worries because he has household chores to do and other obligations. This goes on for months and he is subsequently referred to a shrink on suspicion of being mentally ill.

What's the difference, other than a question of numbers of adherents. I don't see much difference to be honest.

[OzmO]

I do all the time.

To show what I mean. Imagine the following.

A man believes that bejeweling his garden with topaz and amethyst in circular patterns and subsequently dancing and singing in his garden allows him to tap into the power of Xorax, the High One. He does this every Sunday and his wife worries because he has household chores to do and other obligations. This goes on for months and he is subsequently referred to a shrink on suspicion of being mentally ill.

Substituted:

A man believes that garnering his house with bibles in circular patterns and subsequently dancing and singing in his church allows him to tap into the power of Jesus, the Son of Man. He does this every Sunday and his wife worries because he has household chores to do and other obligations. This goes on for months and he is subsequently referred to a shrink on suspicion of being mentally ill.

What's the difference, other than a question of numbers of adherents. I don't see much difference to be honest.

What is the percentage of people who believe in God or some superstition, ESP, ghosts etc...?   Are you suggesting the human race is mostly mentally ill?

[Deicide]

What is the percentage of people who believe in God or some superstition, ESP, ghosts etc...?   Are you suggesting the human race is mostly mentally ill?

If a few hundred people believe some weird stuff, we call it a cult. If it is a billion plus subscribers, we call it Islam or Christianity. 

Yes, to an extent that is true. Humans are naturally superstitious.

[OzmO]

If a few hundred people believe some weird stuff, we call it a cult. If it is a billion plus subscribers, we call it Islam or Christianity. 

Yes, to an extent that is true. Humans are naturally superstitious.

Why do you suppose they are?

[Deicide]

Why do you suppose they are?

It's complicated. Part of it is that we as a species are very aware of our consciousness. The idea of the afterlife is an extension of the shock of the extinction of that consciousness. If person A was here a minute ago, where is he a minute later? A bigger part of the picture is the fact that humans operate by cause and effect in their own behaviour and falsely extend that to the inanimate world.

[OzmO]

It's complicated. Part of it is that we as a species are very aware of our consciousness. The idea of the afterlife is an extension of the shock of the extinction of that consciousness. If person A was here a minute ago, where is he a minute later? A bigger part of the picture is the fact that humans operate by cause and effect in their own behaviour and falsely extend that to the inanimate world.

I agree.

Can consciousness be replicated by machines? What is the level of consciousness we have achieved with machines?

[Straw Man]

It's complicated. Part of it is that we as a species are very aware of our consciousness. The idea of the afterlife is an extension of the shock of the extinction of that consciousness. If person A was here a minute ago, where is he a minute later? A bigger part of the picture is the fact that humans operate by cause and effect in their own behaviour and falsely extend that to the inanimate world.

How do we know (or assume) that consciousness is a product of the body and ends when the body dies.   Maybe consciousness is primary and pervasive.  Maybe the brain just tunes it in and focuses it and we come to identify it as "I"

[Deicide]

How do we know (or assume) that consciousness is a product of the body and ends when the body dies.   Maybe consciousness is primary and pervasive.  Maybe the brain just tunes it in and focuses it and we come to identify it as "I"

The evidence we DO have is that our consciousness stems from our brain. No brain, no consciousness, hence no person. Anything else is just warantless speculation.

[Straw Man]

The evidence we DO have is that our consciousness stems from our brain. No brain, no consciousness, hence no person. Anything else is just warantless speculation.

maybe when the brain ceases to function it can no longer receive and focus consciousness but I'm not so sure it doesn't precede the brain (just my opinion and also the belief of some Hindu's/Buddhists).   Maybe there's only one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively and it' just our error that we perceive it to be ours personally or even that our thoughts are "ours".   

[Deicide]

maybe when the brain ceases to function it can no longer recieve and focus consciousness but I'm not so sure it doesn't precede the brain (just my opinion and also the belief of some Hindu's/Buddhists).   Maybe there's only one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively and it' just our error that we perceive it to be ours personally or even that our thoughts are "ours".   

Maybe, Maybe, Maybe....

And maybe wars are caused by an invisible Odin hurling his spear down to earth.

And maybe Jesus was/is the Son of God.

Baseless speculation that is worthless until it can be empirically verified.

[Straw Man]

Maybe, Maybe, Maybe....

And maybe wars are caused by an invisible Odin hurling his spear down to earth.

And maybe Jesus was/is the Son of God.

Baseless speculation that is worthless until it can be empirically verified.

I never said anything about Odin, Jesus or even belief in a diety or even belief in a soul

I'm only talking about what we generally identify as consciousness

speculation??  Yes

warrantless - not in my opinion, if only just for my own purposes

As soon as you can explain exactly what consciousness is then I'll consider giving up the speculation

At this point pretty much all we have is specualation

It's wide open territory

[Dos Equis]

I do all the time.

To show what I mean. Imagine the following.

A man believes that bejeweling his garden with topaz and amethyst in circular patterns and subsequently dancing and singing in his garden allows him to tap into the power of Xorax, the High One. He does this every Sunday and his wife worries because he has household chores to do and other obligations. This goes on for months and he is subsequently referred to a shrink on suspicion of being mentally ill.

Substituted:

A man believes that garnering his house with bibles in circular patterns and subsequently dancing and singing in his church allows him to tap into the power of Jesus, the Son of Man. He does this every Sunday and his wife worries because he has household chores to do and other obligations. This goes on for months and he is subsequently referred to a shrink on suspicion of being mentally ill.

What's the difference, other than a question of numbers of adherents. I don't see much difference to be honest.

Do you have the same opinion of people who attend, graduate from, and teach at divinity schools?  What about those attending/teaching at parochial schools?   

[MCWAY]

Keep in mind, folks, that this is the same man, that has started thread after thread after thread, obsessing over someone he doesn't believe to exist.

He has proposed (or, should I say, cut and pasted) scores of conspiracy theories on how Jesus and his hometown were fabricated and how God was invented.....all, ironically enough, by people, to whom he has referred as ignorant goat-herders.

And, HE'S calling Christians "mentally ill"!!

Move over, Britney!!! You've got company coming!!!

[Deicide]

Do you have the same opinion of people who attend, graduate from, and teach at divinity schools?  What about those attending/teaching at parochial schools?   

As for my opinion of theology; Richard Dawkins sums it up much better. He wrote this ten years ago:

A dismally unctuous editorial in the British newspaper the Independent recently asked for a reconciliation between science and "theology." It remarked that "People want to know as much as possible about their origins." I certainly hope they do, but what on earth makes one think that theology has anything useful to say on the subject?

Science is responsible for the following knowledge about our origins. We know approximately when the universe began and why it is largely hydrogen. We know why stars form and what happens in their interiors to convert hydrogen to the other elements and hence give birth to chemistry in a world of physics. We know the fundamental principles of how a world of chemistry can become biology through the arising of self-replicating molecules. We know how the principle of self-replication gives rise, through Darwinian selection, to all life, including humans.

It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge and given it, moreover., in fascinating, over-whelming, mutually confirming detail. On every one of these questions theology has held a view that has been conclusively proved wrong. Science has eradicated smallpox, can immunize against most previously deadly viruses, can kill most previously deadly bacteria. Theology has done nothing but talk of pestilence as the wages of sin. Science can predict when a particular comet will reappear and, to the second, when the next eclipse will appear. Science has put men on the moon and hurtled reconnaissance rockets around Saturn and Jupiter. Science can tell you the age of a particular fossil and that the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake. Science knows the precise DNA instructions of several viruses and will, in the lifetime of many present readers, do the same for the human genome.

What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?

[MCWAY]

As for my opinion of theology; Richard Dawkins sums it up much better. He wrote this ten years ago:

 

More silliness from the atheists' flavor of the month.

Science has cured disease, indeed. What Mr. Dawkins conveniently forgets is that the early scientists responsible for helping cure those diseases back in the day were Bible-believing Christians, which pretty much tanks his claim (and that of other atheists) that adherence to Darwinian evolution is required for scientific advancement. In fact, one particular biologist (Pasteur) used science to effectively shoot down on of the founding tenets of evolution, that being spontaneous generation. And early evolutionists admitted such (i.e. George Wald), claiming that they only held onto evolution, because without it they must defer to supernatural creation as the source of life.

Of course, some of those diseases (especially those transmitted sexually) could have been AVOIDED, had people simply followed the Bible's rules on sexual conduct. Hospitals became safe, because someone (Florence Nightingale, I believe) came up novel idea that maybe sick people would live longer in hospital, instead of getting infected and dying, IF their environment were acutally clean and limited people's exposure to blood (and thus, blood-borned pathogens).

SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE!!!! The Levitical laws, in that pesky Old Testament, that talks about that mean old Yahweh and those "ignorant goat-herders" tells people to stay away from blood. Those who exposed themselves to such were cut off (put in quarantine or exile). Then, there's that dietary thing. Eating unclean animals can get people sick, and those spread people SPREAD DISEASE (aka pestilence). Yet, some people think that mean old Yahweh simply wanted to deprive people of the joy of eating a ham sandwich.

In short, Dawkins has a funny habit of saying some rather stupid things, considering his professed enlightenment. History and scientific advancement has shown his rantings to be false and, in many cases, unwarranted. But, what else is new?

[Deicide]

More silliness from the atheists' flavor of the month.

Science has cured disease, indeed. What Mr. Dawkins conveniently forgets is that the early scientists responsible for helping cure those diseases back in the day were Bible-believing Christians, which pretty much tanks his claim (and that of other atheists) that adherence to Darwinian evolution is required for scientific advancement. In fact, one particular biologist (Pasteur) used science to effectively shoot down on of the founding tenets of evolution, that being spontaneous generation. And early evolutionists admitted such (i.e. George Wald), claiming that they only held onto evolution, because without it they must defer to supernatural creation as the source of life.

Of course, some of those diseases (especially those transmitted sexually) could have been AVOIDED, had people simply followed the Bible's rules on sexual conduct. Hospitals became safe, because someone (Florence Nightingale, I believe) came up novel idea that maybe sick people would live longer in hospital, instead of getting infected and dying, IF their environment were acutally clean and limited people's exposure to blood (and thus, blood-borned pathogens).

SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE!!!! The Levitical laws, in that pesky Old Testament, that talks about that mean old Yahweh and those "ignorant goat-herders" tells people to stay away from blood. Those who exposed themselves to such were cut off (put in quarantine or exile). Then, there's that dietary thing. Eating unclean animals can get people sick, and those spread people SPREAD DISEASE (aka pestilence). Yet, some people think that mean old Yahweh simply wanted to deprive people of the joy of eating a ham sandwich.

In short, Dawkins has a funny habit of saying some rather stupid things, considering his professed enlightenment. History and scientific advancement has shown his rantings to be false and, in many cases, unwarranted. But, what else is new?

You have to be fucking kidding. The OT trumps modern science according to you. According to the OT, a bat is a bird. Maybe zoolologists have gotten it wrong.

[MCWAY]

You have to be fucking kidding. The OT trumps modern science according to you. According to the OT, a bat is a bird. Maybe zoolologists have gotten it wrong.

Apparently, all that cussing has affected your ability to read, as nowhere did I state that the Bible "trumps modern science".

Try reading what I actually posted, again. Mean old Yahweh taught those "ignorant goat-herders" that, if they limited their exposure to blood, they would cut the amount of disease in their land. When nurses and doctors started cleaning up their surroundings (including their instruments) and limited blood exposure among their patients, they cut down disease, not only protecting themselves , but their patients from infection.

In short, science has a funny habit of validating what the Bible has said to be true all along. You know that first hand, courtesy of your latest link you provided on another thread. But, that is another story for another time.

[Deicide]

Apparently, all that cussing has affected your ability to read, as nowhere did I state that the Bible "trumps modern science".

Try reading what I actually posted, again. Mean old Yahweh taught those "ignorant goat-herders" that, if they limited their exposure to blood, they would cut the amount of disease in their land. When nurses and doctors started cleaning up their surroundings (including their instruments) and limited blood exposure among their patients, they cut down disease, not only protecting themselves , but their patients from infection.

In short, science has a funny habit of validating what the Bible has said to be true all along. You know that first hand, courtesy of your latest link you provided on another thread. But, that is another story for another time.

I was just pulling a MCWAY, you know when you make something up that someone I didn't say.

[MCWAY]

Then, there's this buffoonery from Dawkins, referenced by Trapezkerl:

What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?

Dawkins conveniently forgets (again) that God-fearing men help drive science and technology.

No printed books? That's strange. I thought that not only did a Christian man (Gutenberg) invent the printing press (with movable type) but one of the first books (and the most celebrated one) to be replicated by that invention was.......THE BIBLE!!!!

And that was done so that, contrary to yet another screwball claim by atheists of Dawkins' ilk, the masses could read Scripture FOR THEMSELVES.

No doctors but witch doctors? Is it my imagination, or are the hundreds (if not thousands) of hospitals that are "Methodist hospitals", "Baptist memorial hospitals", or have other such titles. And, Christian men and women looked after the sick and feeble, when other folks (including the so-called enligthened non-believers) left them to die, because they just weren't among the "fittest". And, last time I checked, one of the writers of the Gospels was a physican, too.

No agriculture beyond peasant farming? Apparently, Dawkins missed the part in the Old Testament, when Israel is instructed on what crops to plant and when to plant them.

The more you look at history and how much Christian theology has positively impacted this world, in areas of science and technology, the more bone-headed and downright ridiculous these words of Dawkins become.

[Dos Equis]

As for my opinion of theology; Richard Dawkins sums it up much better. He wrote this ten years ago:

 

I wasn't asking for your opinion about theology.  You queried whether "genuine believers" are mentally ill.  I assume this is your belief?  I asked if you had the "same opinion of people who attend, graduate from, and teach at divinity schools?  What about those attending/teaching at parochial schools?"     

[Deicide]

I wasn't asking for your opinion about theology.  You queried whether "genuine believers" are mentally ill.  I assume this is your belief?  I asked if you had the "same opinion of people who attend, graduate from, and teach at divinity schools?  What about those attending/teaching at parochial schools?"     

In a way they are. They have been brainwashed. What is the object of study in a divinity school? A forever unprovable entity. It is just plain silly. If they genuinely believe these things, whatever their schooling, I submit that they have some sort of mental illness; it is a cult after all.

[MCWAY]

I was just pulling a MCWAY, you know when you make something up that someone I didn't say.

I don't have to make up anything. Your screwball statements are right here in black-and-white for all to see, Trapezkerl.

YOU did, in fact, claim that Nazareth did not exist at all and was made up by Christians. YOU DID, in fact, later switch to the position that Nazareth didn't exist, until 3rd century A.D.

And, YOU DID, in fact, start another thread, entitled "Great Site on the Invented Town of Nazareth", complete with a link that (from the opening page) cites archaeological evidence for the existence of this same alleged Christian-invented town called Nazareth THAT DATES LATE 1ST CENTURY/EARLY 2ND CENTURY A.D.

[Necrosis]

Then, there's this buffoonery from Dawkins, referenced by Trapezkerl:

Dawkins conveniently forgets (again) that God-fearing men help drive science and technology.

No printed books? That's strange. I thought that not only did a Christian man (Gutenberg) invent the printing press (with movable type) but one of the first books (and the most celebrated one) to be replicated by that invention was.......THE BIBLE!!!!

And that was done so that, contrary to yet another screwball claim by atheists of Dawkins' ilk, the masses could read Scripture FOR THEMSELVES.

No doctors but witch doctors? Is it my imagination, or are the hundreds (if not thousands) of hospitals that are "Methodist hospitals", "Baptist memorial hospitals", or have other such titles. And, Christian men and women looked after the sick and feeble, when other folks (including the so-called enligthened non-believers) left them to die, because they just weren't among the "fittest". And, last time I checked, one of the writers of the Gospels was a physican, too.

No agriculture beyond peasant farming? Apparently, Dawkins missed the part in the Old Testament, when Israel is instructed on what crops to plant and when to plant them.

The more you look at history and how much Christian theology has positively impacted this world, in areas of science and technology, the more bone-headed and downright ridiculous these words of Dawkins become.

you've missed dawkins whole point unfortunately, that science not theology is accountable for all of our knowledge, and stuff in the bible is obvious. life plant crops, stay away from blood, man at that time understood this, and its extremely primitive. if the bible had the genome id be impressed, but it doesnt it just has some very basic, life instructions.

cosmology, biology,chemistry, biochem, medicine etcc..... is all based on naturalistic explanations nothing in science or in life is based on supernatural explanations.

you also seem to liken people who beleive in god performing science as evidence for god, when in actual fact its just science. newton beleived in god and may have wanted to observe gods work, what he came up with was a naturalistic law based in science with nothing to do with god, he just said "its gods work" when in actual fact its just gravity. theology is a philosophy and is basic, science in super complex and is the basis of life, not theology.

[Deicide]

I don't have to make up anything. Your screwball statements are right here in black-and-white for all to see, Trapezkerl.

YOU did, in fact, claim that Nazareth did not exist at all and was made up by Christians. YOU DID, in fact, later switch to the position that Nazareth didn't exist, until 3rd century A.D.

And, YOU DID, in fact, start another thread, entitled "Great Site on the Invented Town of Nazareth", complete with a link that (from the opening page) cites archaeological evidence for the existence of this same alleged Christian-invented town called Nazareth THAT DATES LATE 1ST CENTURY/EARLY 2ND CENTURY A.D.

The Myth of Nazareth meticulously reviews the archaeology of the Nazareth basin from the Stone Age to the present, and shows that the settlement of Nazareth came into existence in the early second century C.E., well after the time of Christ. In this study René Salm reviews all the structural and movable evidence from the first excavations in the late 19th century to the most recent reports. This review also encompasses the extensive secondary literature, found in books and reference articles in dictionaries and encyclopedias. Salm shows that traditional conclusions found in all these works regarding the settlement of Nazareth are radically inconsistent with the itemized evidence in the ground.

The point being that there was nothing there when your godman in a loincloth allegedly was rummaging about. It settlement, not city. Archaeological evidence of a city first appears in the 3rd century CE. In any event there appears to have nothing there when your messiah was supposed to have been there.

[MCWAY]

The point being that there was nothing there when your godman in a loincloth allegedly was rummaging about. It settlement, not city. Archaeological evidence of a city first appears in the 3rd century CE. In any event there appears to have nothing there when your messiah was supposed to have been there.

The point is that your dates keep floating, when more archaeological evidence confirms the existence of a place that YOU and other skeptics claim was fabricated by Christians. And the more evidence that's found, the closer that evidence dates to Jesus' lifetime, causing you and the other skeptic folks to do that dance, yet again.

And, Salm does, in fact, states, "shows that the village came into existence not earlier than 70 C.E." which would be late FIRST CENTURY C.E.(or as I prefer, A.D.).