Religion 'could offer model for delusion'

[Terwilliger]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/13/1058034874823.html

July 14 2003
By Judy Skatssoon

Studying the mechanisms of religious belief could lead to a better understanding of what goes on in the minds of people with psychiatric delusions.

An international conference in Sydney this week will hear that some religious beliefs - including that a virgin gave birth to the son of God - qualify as delusions.

Macquarie University PhD student Ryan McKay, who has been studying under one of Australia's leading authorities on delusions, Max Coltheart, said the idea that religion was a delusion dated back to Sigmund Freud about 100 years ago.

In his presentation to the Cognitive Science Conference today Mr McKay will outline the latest thinking on how religious belief relates to delusion.

"The line between psychosis and intense religiosity is a bit of a difficult one to draw," he said.

<snip>

........MORE.........

:shrug: wasn't me!

[StopTheMorans]

1. This is great, but you're gonna get flamed soon enough from the

"virgins can have babies" miracle crowd shortly;) Note to Christians: I LOVE YOU ALL, that was merely "a joke", as us non-believers like to say.

[KCDem]

12. hey, I've been a virgin many times!

Just ask my husband. :wow:

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blue_Chill]

3. bleh

Atheists attacking religion. Everywhere you go, in every professional field imaginable, athiests attack religion. Then they complain that religion attacks them.

Which is exactly how the religious nuts in the right wing behave.



Nice to see that both sides of the "I'm right you're not" crowd have something in common.

[papau]

5. How is this a political discussion for left sided Dems?

One note folks are tiresome.

But if it floats their boat, what the heh. My 5 year old grandchild is going through the "I'm right your not" period - in a year if she is like all the others she will have enough self-esteem that it will not be necesssary - at least I hope so.

Meanwhile back at DU are we running an over/under pool for how many times this same article will be posted by these children?

[StopTheMorans]

9. one note folks?

please explain.
and "these children"? Resorting to calling people "children" is always a sure way to discern who the real adults are;) Ah yes, the christians are such a downtrodden group, they have had it so tough since the days when they were forced into the gladiator rings. Oh wait, they haven't been persecuted (except by other christians i.e. inquistion, huguenots in France, etc..) in Europe, they haven't had crusades launched against them (except for Chinggis Khan), and now they have to deal with people on the net bringing up articles relating certain parts of christianity that are based on faith, and not fact, to delusion? Faith in things that cannot be proven (while people have been trying for thousands of years) being linked to delusion is not that unreasonable, IMHO. God Bless the advent of logic:)

[Blue_Chill]

14. Oh yes you poor poor atheist

I can't believe you live in a world in which you may be forced to glance at christmas decorations. How do you manage to keep going?

[StopTheMorans]

17. for the record

I put up christmas decorations, more as a cultural event than anything else. i don't care if you put your icthus (sp?) on the back of your car, if you have a "my boss is a jewish carpenter" sticker on your car, if you celebrate christmas, the pagan holiday that christmas replaced, hanukkah, kwanza, or any other holiday. I don't try to stop that, and I enjoy the expression. Trying to turn the argument around doesn't work, where are the atheist symbols? Oh you poor christians, you have to look at all of the decorations we put up for our atheist holidays! see what I'm saying? It's not in your face all the time, there aren't holidays (mainstream anyways) celebrating atheism, and atheists are in the extreme minority in america, so stop trying to say that christians have it rough, they may, but not in this country.

[Blue_Chill]

21. what record?

1- Atheist not having holidays is not anyones doing other then Atheists themselves. If you want a holiday have one, hell I will celebrate with you! We can call it "There is no God day!" and carry around a golden calf just to prove we won't be struck by lightening.

2- As for atheist being the smallest minority I believe your numbers in the US are 15%? I may be wrong but that isn't too small a minority is it? There less druids(sp?) then atheists in the US.

3- If you don't like things being in your face all the time, what can I say but too bad. If you dislike the majority of a nations population then perhaps your in the wrong place? I don't like the racists so I can promise you I wouldn't live in a town with signs like "white only" sitting in store windows.

[StopTheMorans]

27. you're stretching it...

2- As for atheist being the smallest minority I believe your numbers in the US are 15%? I may be wrong but that isn't too small a minority is it? There less druids(sp?) then atheists in the US.



I didn't claim that atheists were the smallest minority, I was merely refuting your inference that Christians have it tough here. They don't, and they won't anytime soon, they are a huge majority. I was just saying that you cannot say that Christians are the ones who are on the defensive here, they are not, b/c of their overwhelming numbers in this nation.

3- If you don't like things being in your face all the time, what can I say but too bad. If you dislike the majority of a nations population then perhaps your in the wrong place?



Boy, this is even better logic. Maybe I'm living in the wrong place? Yes, and maybe you should have left if you didn't support the war? Maybe people of the people in the US who practiceIslamic faith should leave because they practice a different religion? I didn't ever say "I dislike" Christians, and when you said "if you don't like things in your face", I never said I didn't like them, again, you are putting words in my mouth. I merely inferred that I do not agree with Christianity and its teachings, that is a long way from saying "I dislike Christians", Like any other person, I evaluate them on an individual basis.

[Forkboy]

50. geez

hypocrisy abounds today!

3- If you don't like things being in your face all the time, what can I say but too bad. If you dislike the majority of a nations population then perhaps your in the wrong place?

Love it or leave it huh? Besides,if you dont like this study what can I say but "too bad".

The bright side to being on DU lately is that I don't have to surf any right-wing websites to find out what they're talking about.I get it right here now.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[carolinayellowdog]

60. Actually, Christians are terribly persecuted

in quite a few places, notably Sudan, Indonesia, and Egypt. I'm not one, so don't have a dog in the fight, but they really are targets of religious persecution. NOT by secular humanists needless to say.

[Brotherjohn]

23. I don't know if this is where the original post was coming from, but...

...read my post (#6) from earlier.

The issue is relevant to Bush, I believe, b/c strongly fundamentalist religions do not encourage independent thought and often run counter to the world of science and rational thought. Fundamentalists (of any religion) often ignore facts which do not support their beliefs, even as they are clearly demonstrated to them by the entire. I have become more and more convinced over his term that Bush is a fundamentalist Christian (and not just posing as one to get the Christian vote). The WMD situation reveals that similar thought processes, at least, are at play.

Let me add that, whether or not this is what the original post intended, I think that the debate of fundamentalism vs. non-fundamentalism is different from the debate of religion vs. non-religion. I don't think one can argue that religion itself is bad. Whatever's right for some may not be for others, and that's fine. But I think a legitimate case can be made that fundamentalism is bad, and dangerous. I don't think it is anti-religion to say so, and I think it is particularly relevant to politics and the world situation today.

[Blue_Chill]

29. fundamentalism is bad

I agree 100%

Especially when it leads to hate. The pope is most likely considered a fundie but at least he tries to put a positive spin on everything. When he can't he resorts to "we need to meditate on it"

Love that old bastid :D

[Phoenixtongueof fire]

8. I am an Atheist........

I do not attack religion. You are free to believe anything that you wish. What I attack it the religionist attempt to force their religion on everyone else. I believe I have the right to challenge religious beliefs that state there is a God and we must do as the preachers say that God commands us to do, when they cannot prove the existence of any God.
Religionist attack Atheist because the believe that we are going to Hell and that we are in league with the Devil, another Mythical character whose existence cannot be proven. If the religionist would leave us alone to practice no religion, we would leave them alone to practice their religion as long as they keep their religion to themselves.

[Blue_Chill]

10. If I don't see it, hear about it, or know about it

I won't attack you for it.

That's basically what you said. It's no different then me telling you, that as long as you never mention you are an atheist we are fine. You must at all times keep that to yourself and if you dare share it I'll go apeshit on you.

Whatever happened to accepting others for who they are and enjoying the diversity of the world. I love nothing more then to speak with my friends about their views on this topic. If I see a religious decoration I stop and admire it, regardless of who's faith it represents.

For the life of me I can not understand the cold hateful approach that some of you take where all must be kept hidden so as not to insult.

[PurityOfEssence]

36. It's not only "so as to not insult"

I have small children and many people have no compunction about trying to save them. How would you like it if I did that to your kids? Do you feel the same about those attempting to do it to my kids and me? Answer that last part truthfully, because regardless what "truth" you accept, people selling belief systems are deliberately driving a wedge between me and my children. Of course, since they're trying to save mortal souls, all normal rules of decency are suspended. This is a hallmark of religions: they answer to higher levels of authority. That's way too dangerous to have in society. Yet, have it we must, because that's what pluralism's all about.

People are fired, marginalized and demonized in this society for not believing. Paul Begala has no qualms about repeatedly saying that Hitler and Tim McVeigh were atheists (even though they were Roman Catholics just like he is) in yet another effort to demonize non-believers.

A good example of what you experience can be had from certain of the actions of my sister. We have a standing deal that we won't talk about the subject, and if our nieces and nephews bring it up, we'll try to avoid it. She sends childrens' books with religious stories and such, but I know she's not up to any nefarious proselytizing, it's just so deeply ingrained in her everyday life that she doesn't detect it. Your belief is so ingrained that you probably don't see many of the manifestations in society; that's normal and it's not "bad".

Try this for an exercise: walk around for a week trying to be as tuned in to religious expression. Each of these is a marginalizing of the non-believers. I'm in the L.A. area, and there are numerous different religious bumper stickers sneering at non-believers and conjuring endless torture, etc.

Sure, some people get carried away on both sides, but don't think for a second that much vigorous emotional rhetoric isn't there on a constant basis from believers. To some of us, the act of proselytizing is aggressive and intrusive.

It's not just discomfort; it's our children.

It's not just belief; it's lionizing the habit of taking things as true without proof. The WMD argument is a fabulous example of this.

Yes, threads of this sort are usually started to incite flamings.

Physiologically and emotionally, belief is a very similar state to delusion and the acceptance of unproven things as truth can lead to extreme insanity. Couple this with the "why would god do this to me" assumption, and you can go seriously nuts. Religion needs to take responsibility for its ills as well as its benefits.

How would you like it if you were very ill at 2 a.m., standing in line to buy some anti-histamine, and upon sneezing, there was someone there to say "there is no god". The blythely religious is everywhere in society. For those of us who see religion as exceedingly dangerous in politics and human struggles, it's a constant reminder of the dilemma of mankind.

[sangh0]

Just try and convert my kids

Go ahead, I dare you. And if my kids are going to ignore me and instead, listen to some absolute stranger, then the fault is mine for losing the trust of my own children

Was that honest enough for you? Could you be that honest and admit that if your children are so vulnerable to religious conversion, then it's because you haven't done your job as a parent?

Of course, since they're trying to save mortal souls, all normal rules of decency are suspended. This is a hallmark of religions: they answer to higher levels of authority.

Not all religions support proselytizing. Jews actually discourage it. You're engaging in stereotypes

Try this for an exercise: walk around for a week trying to be as tuned in to religious expression. Each of these is a marginalizing of the non-believers.

Two points:

1) The same argument could be used against some of the atheists posts in this thread. If a religious expression "marginalizes" non-believers, then why don't atheististic expressions marginalize the religious? (A: Because it doesn't. Free speech and expressions of opinion aren't marginalizing. Power marginalizes - opinions don't)

2) You have no right to privacy or pleasantries when you are out in public. If you don't like what you see out in the world, that's the price you pay for living in a free society.

Sure, some people get carried away on both sides, but don't think for a second that much vigorous emotional rhetoric isn't there on a constant basis from believers. To some of us, the act of proselytizing is aggressive and intrusive.

And to some us, the blatant and unapologetic bigotry expressed in this thread is aggresive and intrusive. That's the price you pay for living in a free society. (And BTW, it's impossible to "intrude" on someone's privacy when they are in public)

It's not just discomfort; it's our children.

"THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!" Oh, the horrors! <shudder>

How about this? DO YOUR JOB AS A PARENT, and teach your children that those people are to be ignored.

How would you like it if you were very ill at 2 a.m., standing in line to buy some anti-histamine, and upon sneezing, there was someone there to say "there is no god". The blythely religious is everywhere in society.

Oh you poor thing! "God bless you" is just so painful to listen to.

[PurityOfEssence]

90. Crush all opposition

My post was an appeal to look at things from the other side, and you choose to pick bits and pieces to "defend" your world, using a vicious a personal attack. I'm trying to raise my children thoughtfully and with great involvement in what is a spiritually invasive culture.

First off, learn to read. Second don't claim that I'm not doing my job as a parent. That's ugly. It's designed to dismiss me as a human being and promote your childrearing as ethically superior. Go read your New Testament. You accuse me of using shrillness to provoke. If you really are a parent and have a scrap of an ethic anywhere, you know full well that your post was designed specifically to infuriate me and incite retaliation.

Learn to read. I said this:

"Of course, since they're trying to save mortal souls, all normal rules of decency are suspended. This is a hallmark of religions: they answer to higher levels of authority." which you quoted and responded to with this:

"Not all religions support proselytizing. Jews actually discourage it. You're engaging in stereotypes"

My statement says that it's a hallmark of religions that they answer to higher levels of authority, that does not state that all religions proselytize, it shows that this habit is part of the larger self-exemption from comportment. I send my kids to a Jewish pre-school, and one of the many reasons for that is the lack of proselytizing. Practice reading.

How dare anyone offer any opinions contrary to yours. You have decided to push the most tender button of all just because someone has the gall to point out another point of view.

I know full well the right of privacy laws from the work I do; when a group of two people come to my front door and one of them tries to engage one of my kids in conversation while the other tries to pitch me, that's invasion of privacy.

Get a grip! I was not attacking or insulting Blue Chill, someone who's at the forefront of escalation of these things, I didn't ridicule this person or question his/her humanity. For that, you need to attack what is obviously a major soft spot. You're above the law when your beliefs are challenged, aren't you?

[Phoenixtongueof fire]

56. No where did I say you had to keep your religion hidden..

I did say you should keep it to yourself and not attempt force other to your religion against their will. If you wish to tell other how you believe that is one thing but to tell them that they must believe as you do is something else entirely. Religious Fundamentalist try to force others into their brand of religion even to the point of trying to get their religious views mandated into law.
In as much as I believe I have a right to be a Atheist and to express my view that there is no God, so I believe you have a right to express your view that there is a God. But I do not try to force you into denying your believe in a God, and I am not trying to mandate Atheism into law.

[Forkboy]

11. Why not comment on the artice BC?

I know you poor downtrodden religious people are having a tough time in this country right now :eyes:

[EOTE]

13. Mary was a virgin!

I have her word on that.

[Blue_Chill]

16. That's nice

and the universe came to be when something that existed before everything, which actually wasn't before because time wasn't here yet, exploded and then bam everything was here!

I have the universes word on that.

[Blue_Chill]

15. Why bother?

Faith can not be proven nor disproven, so thus an study calling such beliefs delusions are little more then projections from a unhappy athiest seeking to leave his mark.

[StopTheMorans]

20. unhappy?

or realistic? Why do you feel the need to stereotype atheists as "unhappy"? Do you need to believe in God to be happy?

[sangh0]

24. Can't you read?

BC stated the reason why:

Faith can not be proven nor disproven

[StopTheMorans]

31. let's not start posts with insults shall we?

can't you read? Please, how is that constructive in ANY way? And again, so what if it can't be proven or disproven, how does that relate to being happy? Make an argument, I don't see one. Or maybe there is some assumed inference here I should be making?

[sangh0]

80. OK here's some arguments

1) If you don't understand what someone has said, ask a question instead of posting as if they haven't explained themselves.

2) And again, so what if it can't be proven or disproven, how does that relate to being happy?

Faith is the belief in things not proven.

The fact is that there are many times when we have to make decisions without "knowing" what the best course of action is. Does our inability to see the future clearly stop us from acting? No.

The fact is, we have to make decisions about things, and act on those decisions, even in the absence of "proof". We all need some faith, even the atheists.

For example, many people, including some atheists, take it on faith that science has "proven" the existence of gravity.

[immoderate]

34. Faith is the capacity to believe in what you know is false...

If there is any evidence, even the least, then you don't need faith.

The Pope insists that god freaks out when a couple uses a scum bag (the old meaning.) He has personally performed exorcisms. Church's main job is to get people to beleive this nonsense.

Is it any wonder that their priests have difficulty with reality on sex abuse issues. Lying (delusion) is their game.

--IMM

[Tigermoose]

37. Do you believe in money?

I'm pretty sure I could convince you that in "reality" it is nothing more than formed wood pulp and ink.

But of course, money has significance -- that is, it is a sign for something else, but something else that is deferred in a long line of transactions that it is impossible to know exactly which labor that particular instance of money represented in our exact moment of usage. But still, you keep your faith that the money will work, even though you can't prove exactly how it represents a specific instance of labor (but it can be argued money no longer even ties into a representation of reality, but exists solely for itself above and beyond any 'reality.')

Of course, a money-atheist (Marxist for those paying attention) could provide numerous examples as to why it is silly to believe in money -- a communal barter system would much better represent reality without dealing in "fairy tales."

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. What a load

Faith is belief in something you have no concrete proof of but know is there. However, how do you suppose everything came into being? And before that everything existed, what made it? Only one thing could have always existed -- God.

[Blue_Chill]

26. No but people that spend their days

thinking up ways to piss off other people tend to be unhappy. Atheists that simply don't give a shit and live their lives are most likley very happy people. Just like Christians like myself that couldn't care less if you believe in magical buckets.

[StopTheMorans]

32. "people who spend their days looking for ways to piss other

people off"? Kind of like how Galileo pissed off the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church when he posited that the universe was heliocentric and not centered on the earth? Yeah, right, the search for truth always leads to unhappiness. If that's your position, I'll take unhappy knowledge over happy ignorance any day. And no, I'm not saying religion is ignorant, but I don't even think you believe that this person wrote this article b/c they were unhappy, they (just like any other writer) probably saw interesting connections and decided to develop their theory into an article? OH NO, FREE THOUGHT, HEAVEN FORBID!

[Blue_Chill]

35. hehe you compare Galileo

to a person that compares my faith to mental illness? Had Galileo his study "religious person are all insane and I can prove it" then you would be right. But he didn't. He simply wanted to know the truth and was persecuted by a insecure Roman Catholic Church.

they (just like any other writer) probably saw interesting connections and decided to develop their theory into an article?

Yeah and Bush really did think Iraq was a threat to the US.

[StopTheMorans]

39. again, you dismiss an objection

as nonsense. sorry, it's a reasonable objection, show me any other virgin who has kids, and I'll say that you're not delusional. it's reasonable, and you're just trying to dismiss it as crazy because it makes a valid assumption. and what about the earlier post where I responded to 2 of your 3 points? you accused me of things I never even said, and then acted like you had refuted me.

[Tigermoose]

40. See, the whole idea of the SUPER natural is that it isn't normal.

Thus, science cannot prove the supernatural, because if it could it would no longer be SUPER natural...it would be natural. Fundamentally, you do not believe in the supernatural, so therefore your logic is chained to believing only which can be proven as existing in the natural world. Although, you are not being completely thorough in your contemplations. You stop before it gets too uncomfortable, and shrug it off and maintain your faith that science will one day provide a Theory of Everything, thus allowing you to dismiss the heresies of Christianity against your particular philosophy.

[StopTheMorans]

46. I have already searched for my answers in christianity thanks

and they weren't there. Was a born and bred Christian til i was almost 20. Then I started asking questions christianity couldn't answer, and finding better answers elsewhere that couldn't simply be dismissed with "you have to have faith". Sorry, been there done that, look for the answers to my personal quest within the confines of the christian religion, and it failed me. I took what I could from it, and i'm sure someone is going to say "no, you failed the church" or something of that ilk.

[Blue_Chill]

53. failed the church?

yeesh if that's what you took from Christianity no wonder you left.

[StopTheMorans]

54. that's not what i took from christianity...

and that's not the reason i left. as i said before, christianity could not provide adequate answers to many of the questions I considered vital to my being, so I left. And in terms of pure "happiness", I have been much happier since I left (that's not out of left field, it's a response to your earlier post).

[Tigermoose]

55. Ask.

Question: How wise were you as a teenager? It was my experience that I was pretty naive and headstrong. Back then, I didn't know the right questions to ask, and most likely wouldn't have understood the right answer if it was given.

The biggest red herring people fall for is believing that the SUPERnatural can be proven in nature. This defies the meaning of the word supernatural - that which exists above and outside the natural. So, you can't prove the supernatural with science by definition of both terms, and if you try you will only be disappointed and will fail because you have framed your seeking with a false assumption that biases the seeking. Make sense?

[StopTheMorans]

58. if I can't prove the supernatural with science..

with the advances that are constantly being made, then I, for one, will gladly burn in hell. If they are mutually exclusive, give me science any day. And as for trying to dismiss my questions to "teenage angst" or limited cognitive capacity, that doesn't fly either, simply b/c now I have more knowledge than I did then, and when I try and fit any new knowledge I gain under the umbrella of the Good Lord, it doesn't work. Sorry, been there, done that, and I'm happier with the flames of hell licking at my boot heels:)

[Tigermoose]

64. Please reconsider and search.

Again, Science and Religion are complimentary, not antithetical. One explains the natural world, and the other the supernatural.

The fundamental question at this point is, "Is there such thing as a supernatural reality or existence? Forget all the dogma inspired hatred and periphereal strawmen. Think on this question alone, and ask what you feel is the correct answer. If you are feeling really courageous, go into a dark space without distraction, kneel, and ask God to come into your heart (even if you aren't convinced He will come). If you do this in sincerity, He will come.

[StopTheMorans]

68. holy shi*t i think I'm going to be sick

"if you build it they will come". If you go into a dark room, and try hard enough to imagine anything, it is possible. That's why little kids are scared of the dark, they can't see something, so they believe anything is possible. Again, I've been through all of this, I was an ARDENT believer, and I just slowly looked at every aspect of the faith and realized that it wasn't for me. As for conversion, I witnessed a better attempt from a Mormon at the Davis Square T-stop last Sunday night than the one you just tried.

[Tigermoose]

72. Don't you see?

Because I AM a Christian, and I believe, I do love you as a brother and want you to search.

I realize, that in this day and age, this talk of "love," "charity," and "compassion" seems hokey, but to me that's more a condemnation of the age than the ideas behind the language.

Ask yourself, why do you ridicule? Is it Pride? Rebellion against God? Why?

[StopTheMorans]

81. why do i ridicule?

PLEASE, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH GOD, OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE HE EXISTS. this is just as plausible (if not moreso) than you believing he DOES exist. Neither of us can prove it, so why do you start with the assumption that I am "rebelling against" god. How can i rebel against something that I don't think is there? I ridicule because I see great people wasting their lives feeling guilty about things that other people tell them are "sins", when they could be enjoying (i'm not a fan of unfettered hedonism as the answer to a universe with no inherent meaning mind you) the little time that they have on the remote (in my mind) possibility that when they die, they may be rewarded. and if your god really needs me to believe in him "Believe in the lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved" as his only reason to get into heaven, then I am sorry but that is a fairly narcissitic god and if that is his only exclusive prereq for making it into whatever you want to believe "heaven" is, then I'll take the alternative. Again, you talk down to people when you start out with suppositions that naturally infer God exists and then go on to ask them "are you rebelling against him?" That is condescending and a circular argument to boot. It is like saying "I know that I am right, but you do not see that I am right, why can't you see that you are wrong?"

[Tigermoose]

85. So your answer would be "No, I am not rebelling against God."

I'm sorry you took that as an attack, but I really was just asking for the reason you felt the urge to ridicule another's faith.

If someone believes, and is happy, why do you maintain they are wasting their lives?

I am sorry you are getting so frustrated.

I'm not that good at "proving" it, but there are numerous authors and philosophers I could point you to who do "prove it" as matter of showing the existence of God is more probable than otherwise.

Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis
Pensees by Blaise Pascal

These are a couple of short works that are highly accessible. What have you got to lose? Isn't the slightest chance of the existence of the soul worth a few hours?

I'll make a deal with you as well. Read Mere Christianity and I'll read a book of your choice, and then we'll discuss what we agree or disagree, and why.

[StopTheMorans]

86. stop trying to convert...

you said there are many out there who are better at it, and I agree. I have met many an intelligent person who has tried, and have had lifelong friendships with a group of 7 who work on me all at once. the "a few hours" premise is exactly why i dropped christianity. I value my time enough that I stopped trying to continually prop up things that I could not reconcile with other things that I believed and that I "had faith" in. I have a long reading list already, and I refuse to let "god literature" creep in there when there is so much that I have to read today so I can make a difference in this life:) as I said, I've read a lot of things to try and prop god up in my life, A LOT of things given to me by many a very intelligent christian, but they all failed. I don't have the time for anymore, but thank you for you concern for my "soul", or lack thereof;)

[Blue_Chill]

41. dismiss as nonsense, that which is nonsense

show me any other virgin who has kids

That's never supposed to happen again. It was a singular event like the big bang. but I'll make you a deal, if you can show me the big bang theory taking place, I'll show you a virgin having kids.

it's reasonable

No it isn't, it even goes against the very teachings you want me to prove. How the hell is that reasonable?

and you're just trying to dismiss it as crazy because it makes a valid assumption.

No, I dismiss the article because it's based in the bias of the writer. I am dismissing your "show me a virgin having kids" argument because it goes AGAINST the religion you seek to have me prove.

[Terwilliger]

67. I will

:hi:

[Tigermoose]

70. I'll pray for you.

pick up a copy of C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity if you want to know more about what us crazy Christians are thinking.

[StopTheMorans]

73. I'd rather read

the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. He employs a lot of Christian symbolism, and the stories IMO are a lot more fun than most of the bible. I understand what you are thinking and where you are coming from, just don't subscribe to it myself. That's one of my main problems with many (NOT ALL) Christians: They tend to treat you like you are some kind of idiot that just doesn't see a part of what they do, when you have already explored all that they have, yet simply choose not to accept it. My rant:)

[Tigermoose]

Narnia is for children, Mere Christianity is for thinking adults.

That's why I suggested it instead of the Chronicles of Narnia. Afraid?

I'll make a deal with you. You read Mere Christianity, and I'll read a book of your choice.

[StopTheMorans]

82. not afraid...

I've had extremely conservative baptists trying to convert me for a large portion of my life, to no avail. i've read so many of their books, and every time, I raise the same objections. Which can only be answered with "you have to have faith". And since I do not "have faith", I cannot "overcome" these objections. That is what it always comes down to, me having to forfeit many mutually exclusive thoughts solely so i can "be saved". sorry, not really interested in that. i've seen your side, and I've had enough for my liking thank you:) you be saved, and I'll take damnation, how's that for a compromise?

[Tigermoose]

87. a difference between Baptists and myself

I was raised a Baptist, but for me I found their lack of willingness to use Reason to bolster their faith ineffective. My mother is still a Baptist, until recently she has become frustrated with their preaching politics from the pulpit. I believe faith and reason strengthen one another, and that you should never be afraid to question all aspects of Christianity as long as you are willing to fully explore what you are questioning (not half-ass as is often the case).

It's like this to me. Becoming a Christian is like walking out into the ocean. You use your reason to edge farther and farther out, until you are ready to place your faith in God and plunge in over your head. It IS a seriously scary concept for the modern individualistic person. But what happens is that when you finally surrender you finally start to find who you are -- and a happiness not known before. That's part of the metaphor of dying and resurrection, which is also an actual experience that occurs. Christianity's teachings are not only experiences of the supernatural world, but lessons for living now. Most people just see the surface, materialistic aspects -- because we grow up in this society with a surface, materialistic worldview.

But, this has all been said before and much more eloquently. 2000+ years of tradition, philosophy, theology, etc. that is waiting to be explored but yet curiously is often neglected in favor of recent theory of the post-Enlightenment era that assumes the non-existence of God out of a knee-jerk reaction against the dogmatization of the Church during the later middle ages. I pray the Whiplash is almost over, and we can start reconciling faith with reason (the fundy Christians need to come around to this as well).

[blondeatlast]

92. I don't believe you're damned at all or ever.

I'm sorry, but you are simply basing your views of all Christianity on the narrowest of definitions: that of the Southern Baptists.

I don't want to convert you, I just think you should realize there is a broad spectrum of Christians out there--a fact you seem to be unable or unwilling to accept.

I'm a Quaker by belief, a UU by practice, and I don't believe in hell and doubt whether there is a heaven. I also believe God is both within and without me and in every single one of us.

I don't think anyone on the board has "damned" you to hell; that is all in your imagination.

[Terwilliger]

102. born and raised as one of you folks

I understand what you krezzy kristians are thinking...and it scares me that the lack of reality surrounding mass delusion is lost on most of them.

[Trajan]

89. ehem ....

"That's never supposed to happen again. It was a singular event like the big bang. but I'll make
you a deal, if you can show me the big bang theory taking place, I'll show you a virgin having kids."

Evidence: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence

The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the
Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts
are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these
observations show that the Big Bang is the best current model for the Universe. These observations
include:

The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.
The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law. The data are now very good.
Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.
Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
Time dilation in supernova light curves.

The observations listed above are consistent with the Big Bang or with the Steady State model, but many
observations support the Big Bang over the Steady State:

Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the Universe has evolved.
Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense,
isothermal state.
Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.
Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions
occurring in the First Three Minutes.

Finally, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million
level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary
scenario.

From: .... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/2271377.stm


Telescope finds Big Bang evidence

By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor

Scientists have made a discovery that represents an important confirmation of the Big Bang
theory of the origin of the Universe.

Almost 5,500 hours of observations by a radio telescope at the South Pole have shown the
Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) to be polarised.

The CMB has been called the afterglow of the Big Bang. It is radiation that comes from all
directions in space and has its origin when the cosmos was just 400,000 years old.

The polarisation can be used to probe conditions in the early Universe. Cosmologists say
although such an effect was expected they are relieved to find it.

The discovery should open a new era of cosmic measurements and understanding.


-------------

Regarding the 'virgin birth' ....

From : ... http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/6868/sh02007.html

The Virgin Birth Doctrine
By Jocelyn Rhys - Published 1922

-snip-

However that may be, we know from Origen, who wrote in the first half of the third century "Against Celsus," that these accusations were made; and we know from the writings not only of Origen, but of all the early Church Fathers, that the Virgin Birth doctrine was constantly disputed, and was not believed in even by some of those who held the highest positions in the "orthodox" Christian Church.

Paul of Samosata, for example, taught that Christ was a man and not divinely born, but that, being anointed by the Holy Ghost at his baptism, and keeping himself free from sin, he eventually became united to God. This, as we have already seen, was the doctrine of the "Adoptionist" sect of Christians.

For holding and for teaching such a doctrine Paul does not seem to have been blamed; but he also taught a doctrine which appears to be diametrically opposed to the above-viz., that God the Son was consubstantial with God the Father; and this latter doctrine, which very soon afterwards became the very nucleus of the Athanasian Creed, was condemned in the year 269 by a large council of the Church, at Antioch. By this council Paul, who was then patriarch of Antioch, was sentenced to be deposed. He did not, however, surrender his position until the Roman emperor Aurelian confirmed the sentence in 272. Thus did a pagan emperor aid in settling what was to be the orthodox faith for the time being.

But the Virgin Birth doctrine seems still to have been regarded as an open question. A belief in it became obligatory among Christians only when the "Catholic" sect of Christians allied itself with the Emperor Constantine, assumed the name of orthodox, and, aided by the secular arms of the State, enforced, at the point of the sword, its doctrines upon all men. All doctrines other than its own were then suppressed as heresies. Fertile countries were turned into deserts, and hundreds of thousands of men perished in the wars by which this policy was carried out.

When the Catholic Church eventually triumphed, any expression of doubt was prohibited, and any criticism of the Virgin Birth doctrine was, for many centuries, answered by the imprisonment or the death of the offender. But, in spite of all this, some sects of Christians, besides those primitive sects to which we have already referred, have disbelieved in the doctrine, and a few, in spite of the cruellest persecution, managed to escape total suppression. Of these we will now refer only to the most important survivor-the Unitarians. In England at the present day there are some hundreds of Unitarian churches; in America some thousands. They worship as God only the First Person of the orthodox Christian Trinity, and they regard Jesus as a man and a prophet. They number among their precursors Servetus, a most learned man, who, in addition to other distinctions, is famous for anticipating part of Harvey's doctrine of the circulation of the blood.

Servetus was burnt to death in 1553 at Geneva, at the instigation of the Protestant reformer Calvin, for printing a tract denying the miraculous birth of Christ. In England the first Unitarian to be burnt to death suffered at Norwich in 1579, and a spasmodic persecution of the sect, between that date and the beginning of the nineteenth century, when they obtained the protection of the Act of Toleration, ensured that their views and arguments should not become widely known. Very few persons ever heard the Virgin Birth doctrine questioned, and fewer still heard or could understand the arguments against its acceptance. Whenever and wherever the ecclesiastical authorities were sufficiently powerful, the prospect of being burnt at the stake, together with the books in which their arguments were published, deterred even the boldest sceptics from attempting a task which seemed useless; so men who themselves doubted refrained from imparting their doubts to others. Even when the Church became less powerful and the State more humane, contumely, disgrace, and secular disabilities awaited those who expressed any doubts; while honours, position, and wealth might be attained by those who professed orthodox opinions. Until the numbers of nonconformists, dissenters, and sceptics became large enough to enforce toleration, and some small measure of freedom of speech for all men, unorthodox doctrines were heard by only a very small number of men, and those men were generally classical scholars with ecclesiastical or educational positions to lose if, like the eccentric but honest Whiston, the translator of Josephus, they were too conscientious for the "protective mimicry" of discreet ambiguities.


-snip-


So: .... The doctrine of the Virgin Birth was an object of discord for centuries, and was only 'settled'
through the power of the secular state in concert with 'catholic' theological ecclesiasts ....

------------------------------

IS THIS the evidence of the Virgin Birth you were comparing to the evidence to the Big Bang ?????

[mdmc]

30. We have all been created, and we will die

everything else is a delusion.
Believe in God, just don't vote for Bush.
Don't believe in God, just don't vote for Bush.
You can mock my belief, but it helps me to cope with the Bushit. I won't mock your lack of faith, as long as it helps you cope.

[blondeatlast]

94. A clear voice of reason--thank you.

Bushit--I like it!!!

[Trajan]

78. Bleh ....

Religionists attacking atheists .... Everywhere you go, in every professsional field imaginable,
religionists attacking atheists.

Funny thing about humans: ..... they're ALL the same, and they're ALL right .....

"Give me, O Caesar! ... give me the earth purged of heretics, and I will give you in exchange the
kingdom of heaven. Exterminate with me the heretics; and with you I will exterminate the Persians."
-Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, A.D. 428

Yeah yeah yeah .... damned atheists ALWAYS 'attacking' religion .....

Bleh .......

[Phoenixtongueof fire]

4. And the Pilgrim Fathers of Salem............

weren't delusionist, there really are such a thing as witches.
Fairy Tales are always so much prettier than hard, cold, reality.

[Tigermoose]

28. What is reality?

If you'd actually take the time to study literature, philosophy, history, hell..even quantum physics you'd begin to question your "hard, cold reality." But then again, that's why Sloth is considered a sin.

[Phoenixtongueof fire]

99. I don't question cold, hard, reality, because it is fact..........

Fairy tales are not fact. If you think they are, then you have a problem. And I have read a lot of History, so don't call me a sloth.

[Brotherjohn]

6. I have been thinking of along these lines regarding the WMD fiasco.

How could they continue to push the idea that Iraq was rife with WMD before the war despite all evidence to the contrary. The U.N., the CIA, the FBI, the State Department, and most of the world's experts were at odds with most of the claims made by the Bush White House. It's as though they were blind to the entire world of science, deductive reasoning and critical thinking.

Then I thought: sounds like creationists.

Because they take it on faith that Saddam had WMD and needed to be overthrown, nothing anyone said could sway them. Worse (and likely), because they take it on faith that anyone who is not Christian deserves to go to Hell, then they must overthrow them and kill them all, damned what anybody else says.

[MisterP]

7. specifically, the more absolutist parts;

delusions tend to be absolutist

[Sirius_on]

18. This is so easy to debunk

Probably the vast majority of people were born into there religion, thus making this study a waste of time.

[anti_shrub]

19. Reminds me of a joke

Whats the difference between schitzophrenia and religion?

The occaisional "Amen"!


*ba-dum-CHING*


I'll be here till Thursday. Try the veal.


Seriously, its always funny to see how religious folks claim they are so persicuted by atheists. I mean its not like President Poppy said "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

The burden of living in such a Godless nation must be terrible.

*wipes up huge puddle of sarcasm*

[sangh0]

22. I don't think it's a burden to live in a Godless nation

but I'm not too crazy about being compared to a schizophrenic.

But it is always funny to see the atheists claim that they're so persecuted by the religious folks. I mean, it's not as if any atheist has said "The only difference between schizophrenia and religion are the "Amens"!

*wiping up huge puddles of hypocrisy

[Terwilliger]

25. WHINE WHINE WHINE WHIIIIIINNNNEEEE

man, just like the Democrats

[anti_shrub]

63. There's a simple way to prove who's persecuted

Walk around in public with a Christian themed shirt and see what reaction you get.

Then do the same with an Atheist themed shirt.

Compare.

[sangh0]

76. In my hood

the Christian themed shirt will get you beat down quicker than the atheist shirt.

[Terwilliger]

97. now you're just making things up

or can you quantify that?

[Tigermoose]

33. Our "reality" is a delusion.

It is subject to our perceptions and thus subject to our moods, health, passions, and imagination. Reason relies on our perceptions, so again you can see that ultimately reason is the imagination's bitch in all things. The Christian believes that reality does exist -- God -- but that we are unable to truly perceive it wholly, and only through the revelations given by God to we come close to perceiving the Truth of Reality. But, since we are limited in our cognizance for the reasons outlined above, we rely on symbols, metaphors, and language that is subject to misinterpretation. This is where the Christian concept of the Holy Spirit comes in, and the Christian belief that only through the Holy Spirit can man achieve any sort of true knowledge of reality.

Coincidentally, it seems Quantum Physics is backing this viewpoint up. The perception of the event shapes the reality we "think" we experience.

[AllYorBaseRBlong2USA]

42. Well thats all good and fine but

without straying into multiple dimensions and psycho-babbel I think you should remind yourself that science and religion are mutually exclusive.
I think what is most disturbing is when christians adopt slowly all the technological advances science has brought forth-------

but still say they can pick and choose which is sanctioned by god. The difference between "BigBangers" (chuckle)and creationists is that one has a scientific thurst for FACT.

Readup on BigBang theory. Please.

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. Not at all

Science and religion are perfectly compatible.

God created the natural world. He gave it laws. I don't care if it took seven days (counting that day off) or seven million years, it's still the same idea.

[AllYorBaseRBlong2USA]

43. Well thats all good and fine but

without straying into multiple dimensions and psycho-babbel I think you should remind yourself that science and religion are mutually exclusive.
I think what is most disturbing is when christians adopt slowly all the technological advances science has brought forth-------

but still say they can pick and choose which is sanctioned by god. The difference between "BigBangers" (chuckle)and creationists is that one has a scientific thurst for FACT.

Readup on BigBang theory. Please.

[Tigermoose]

48. I've read up on it..I went to public schools.

I know all about modern scientific theory, and despite your strawman and pathetic shrugging off of issues you haven't studied or don't understand as "psycho-babbel."

And could you please define a "FACT" for me? You won't because it would require some deep thinking that will inevitably result in uncomfortable discoveries for you. Me? I love reading the latest scientific theory. Science discovers the ways of the natural world, and Christianity discovers the ways of the supernatural world. How is that conflict? You are soooo full of assumptions based on our current age's worldview that you don't take the time to consider viewpoints existing in different times, or you naively assume those who came before were ignorant or somehow foolish. Pride is also a fundamental sin. I'll look into anything and everything. I'm not afraid of what I will discover. Can you say the same? Or do you just say "I don't have the time" and then continue your attacks against others whose philosophies and worldviews you are ignorant of, ideas that have been debated for thousands of years that you somehow have all figured out because you watched something on the Discovery channel. Bravo. *claps*

[AllYorBaseRBlong2USA]

44. Well thats all good and fine but

without straying into multiple dimensions and psycho-babbel I think you should remind yourself that science and religion are mutually exclusive.
I think what is most disturbing is when christians adopt slowly all the technological advances science has brought forth-------

but still say they can pick and choose which is sanctioned by god. The difference between "BigBangers" (chuckle)and creationists is that one has a scientific thurst for FACT.

Readup on BigBang theory. Please.

[AllYorBaseRBlong2USA]

45. oops

said I had a dead link...

[Terwilliger]

52. yep, and its all bunk

Christianity is its own delusion.

Quantum physics says the concept of god does not stand up to the rigors of any measurable science, so whether it is knowable or not, it has no place in the real world.

[Tigermoose]

59. dupe

see other message

[Tigermoose]

62. As I've reiterated in other posts.

You are under a false presumption that God exists within the natural world. He exists outside of the natural world, thus he is SUPERnatural. This is the biggest fallacy in religious/scientific debate I've seen, and is a symptom of modern misunderstanding of the "nature" (see? Our language even reflects this) of Christianity.

Quantum Physics basically tells us that reality isn't so solid as we would believe, and that our experience of reality is defined by the BELIEF in the moment of perception of what our senses have just 'seen.' To me, it shows the folly of human perception and reason -- a theme that has been pretty constant throughout ancient and medieval philosophy.

[Terwilliger]

65. I see...God is not knowable, thats why he exists

Quantum physics can only address the physical world.

[Tigermoose]

69. Christians KNOW because God revealed himself to us

via the Holy Spirit. This is a fundamental principle of Christianity. Now, if you don't believe in God or the Holy Spirit, then of course you will not agree with this viewpoint. And, to strengthen faith, we also continue to practice our religion to strengthen through habit what was revealed in Grace. It is a human frailty that we tend to forget things if we do not routinely experience them, but as we continually receive the Holy Spirit our faith is strengthened and our lives transformed. If you haven't experienced this, you don't know what happiness and fulfillment can be like. It is the only experience I know of that I can never get tired of or bored with.

But, as I've said in another post, if you go into a dark room where you won't be distracted, kneel down, and sincerely pray to God that He will enter you and reveal himself, you will feel His presence. Key word here being sincerely.

[Terwilliger]

93. If you go into a dark room...

you can be out of touch with the halls of power, which is where the delusional should be

Yes! Stay in the cave! Reason and enlightenment are the devil!!!!

[Tigermoose]

96. Reason and "enlightenment" have their place,

as does faith.

Why must you resort to ridicule? Why prop up a strawman?

[Az]

98. God in a dark room

Ok, lets consider something. Lets say you are correct and that when you place yourself in a dark room you hear what you believe is god. Then let us say that experiments were conducted and determined that sitting in a dark room trying to hear god causes neuro/chemical changes to take place that cause the brain to begin behaving differently. This alteration causes you to experience a sense of contact with another being that your brain has learned believe is the voice of god. Now let us say this evidence was presented to you complete with brain scans showing the alteration of blood flow and changes in brain wave patterns. Facing all this what would you believe.

This is the core of what we are trying to find out. What goes on in the brain. What is the nature of belief. Why do some people continue to believe things in the face of refutation. How do we come to believe things.

[Tigermoose]

100. It should not refer to this process as delusion...

but since it does it shows its bias.

Its kinda like this: The brain is like a violin, and our senses are like the bow. To know the truth, we have to let God make the music -how to apply the bow to the violin string and in what way to produce the truth of God's message - because by our fallen nature we are only capable of producing discord on our own.

Science can, and should, show the biological processes (parts of the musical instrument) that occur within us while this music is being played, but science should do so without bias in regards to what is "delusional" and what is "truth." Science should simply say, during these experiences this is what we find to biologically happen.

God made us with an innate need to seek Him, and thus biology should be able to show the chemical reactions and such that are produced within us during these processes. But the sense you get from these articles because of the language they use is that they are somehow disproving the truth of these experiences because they recorded the biological effects. Its like disproving music by showing the parts of a violin and how they function.

[Az]

101. Its not religion that is the delusion

This of course does not say that some religions do not promote delusional beliefs. The study is neutral on religion. It is merely examining the belief processes of the brain and using religion as a model to understand how other belief systems form.

[Tigermoose]

103. Neutral?

Do I need to break out the dictionary definition of "Delusion" and show that by linking this word with religion this article is slandering religion?

The title of this article alone is very slanderous towards religion. Better choices of language could have been made, but I think we both know this language is intentional...to get religion-bashers to read it and feel better about themselves. Don't try and pull a Bush-it on me, cause, you know, it is 'factually' accurate if you cross your eyes and ignore things such as tone, context, and connotations.

[Az]

49. Careful, do not misunderstand the nature of this study

It is not claiming that religions are delusional. It is a study to examine religion and its attendent belief systems as a means of understanding individuals with delusions.

Look, its simple. A majority of people have significant belief systems. This is normal. This is how the brain works. Scientists like to understand how things work. So you study normal to understand not normal.

The human mind comes to believe some amazing things. Things that may or may not be true. Religious fervor creates extremely strong beliefs. Understanding the mechanism of this normal process helps us to understand the mind.

Remember, a belief is delusional only if it is wrong. This study is not suggesting that any particular religion is wrong. There are individuals that have strong beliefs that are demonstrably delusional (patient thinks they are a chicken). Understanding how the mind determines what it believes to be true is vital research.

[Cheswick2.0]

57. religious nuts = anti religious nuts

:shrug:

[Merlin]

61. Atheists are believers, too.

Believers rely upon faith, not reason, to validate their beliefs.

Atheists do the same thing. It is not possible to prove a negative. That's a fundamental principal of logic. Therefore, anybody who believe there is no God, must rely upon an unprovable faith to support their views.

I'm not supporting either side, since I'm sort of in the middle. I'm a Deist; one who believes in a Creator, but that's it. Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Paine and others of our founding fathers were Deists. A Deist believes in a deity or supreme power that is the source of the universe, established its order and physical laws, and incorporated within it all of its incredible intelligence and beauty, but believes this supreme power plays no active role in communicating with us or in influencing the outcomes of "fate." My "religion" is a belief in the validity of the "natural law," which is discernable by reason alone.

[Tigermoose]

66. Then you subject God to the natural world.

God created nature, not the other way around. You are limiting God to your ability to conceive Him. We are not God, so we shouldn't subject him to our cognitive abilities.

[Terwilliger]

71. Reason suggests that atheists believe that they don't know

as opposed to others who suffer from delusion

[Tigermoose]

74. Why do you place so much faith in reason?

:)

[StopTheMorans]

75. why do you place so much faith

in faith?

[sangh0]

77. Because it works.......nt

.

[StopTheMorans]

83. oh wait, I get it!

"I am president of the United States, I am president of the United States". HERE ME NOW MEMBERS OF DU! I HAVE JUST BECOME PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SIMPLY BECAUSE I PUT FAITH IN MYSELF THAT I AM PRESIDENT! I HAVE NOW RID US OF THE EVIL SHRUB FOREVER! USE FAITH, AND YOU TOO CAN DISCOUNT LOGIC! THIS IS YOUR PRESIDENT, SIGNING OFF AND SAYING: GOD BLESS FAITH, THE GREAT EQUALIZER:)

[Tigermoose]

88. Why do you ridicule?

????

[Pepperbelly]

79. For my money ... psychology is as much a religion as any ...

Give me a break.

This guy takes his beliefs and pretends they are reality. :shrug:

[Terwilliger]

91. Sounds like god-pods to me

This guy takes his beliefs and pretends they are reality

Religion in a nutshell.

[trof]

84. WOWZER!!!!!

This is so much fun I think I'll go start another pro-smokers thread.
And then another north-south yes-you-did, no-we-didn't thread.
LET THE GREAT FLAME WARS BEGIN!
Death to the infidels!
:dunce:

[Terwilliger]

95. you don't like news articles?

Maybe DU should shut down