Religion = Insanity?

[djprestige21]

Just observations.




Strong points for religion: 







Amazing sense of self confidence (almost drug induced like) for some people. 

Essentially free therapy, religion makes it ok for one to identify ones weaknesses in knowing god will ultimately make their problem or situation better and there is nothing wrong with that. 

Religion (the vast majority), implies the best of an individual as a person and if followed faithfully (in anun-extrimest sense) a person will display many great moral characteristics (still won't be perfect).










Counter-points for religion:










People can use faith as an unbiased crutch for everything, bad day? God wants it to be that way, lose your job? God is testing me, Bird +!!*$ on your windshield? God did it. 




Extrimest viewing, for the same thing that can make religion a strength also makes it a weakness when thinking in this unbiased sense because it makes people who channel the self-confidence of religion take their interpretations in hoping it will put them on a secondary level beyond others with god.




Inaccuracy, did god really invent the universe as we know it in 7 days? Logic points to no. Are we really vain because a man decided to eat an apple off of a special tree? Logic begs to differ. 
















As for my point of view on the subject I believe that if you can get past the clearly over-exaggerated teachings among religion and treat the topic as stories with potential guidelines to become a better person then there is essentially no detriments of religion. Sure you can say that religion is responsible for death, wars, viles of people, but there is strong reason to believe that if religion had never been conjured people would still find a way to do all of those things on the same scale. 

 

[shogun]

why does nt always have to hate on religion?
i think most of us get it by now, no need to have threads bashing it all the time.

i don't follow a religion but i don't have to talk bad about people that do.  let them enjoy what they believe in.

insane people believe they talk to a wide range of people.  some talk to god, random voices in their head, or other people they make up.

 

[shogun]

why does nt always have to hate on religion?
i think most of us get it by now, no need to have threads bashing it all the time.

i don't follow a religion but i don't have to talk bad about people that do.  let them enjoy what they believe in.

insane people believe they talk to a wide range of people.  some talk to god, random voices in their head, or other people they make up.

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

I was reading about the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case recently and I thought, why aren't more religious people considered insane? Here we have a guy claiming to be the prophet of god, promised 49 wives, and he's going around kidnapping kids and raping them under the guise of religion. Is it taboo to claim that religious people are delusional to the point of mental defect? Where do you draw the line between someone hearing the "voice of god" commanding them to build houses in Uganda and someone hearing "the voice of god" commanding them to attack Americans? One might be for good and one might be for evil but aren't both equally crazy?
I understand not all religious people are "extreme" but the idea of any religion is that you place your belief in something that cannot be proven right? If a child believed in Santa, it would be considered cute. If a grown man still put out milk and cookies every December 24th, he would be considered crazy right? I guess the point I'm trying to get across is, at what point are people considered insane? What is the difference between the guy rambling about god on the corner of the street and your neighborhood pastor?

Please don't humor OP. Dude/Dudette is clearly in the mood for a religion bashing seminar.

OP, you're obviously smart enough to acknowledge that the individual that committed these crimes, and in the source and inspiration from which this thread sprouted from, was ACTING UNDER THE GUISE OF RELIGION. Which means, he was using a religion as  FRONT/FACADE/SMOKESCREEN (these are all words that are synonymous with guise) to justify his innate evil. Which in turn means that the man himself was inherently rotting, and it was not "religion" that made him do what he did. That being the case, why the hate for religion and/or those who choose to be religious? It's quite naive of you, and your logic is facile, when you choose to demonize an entire "complex" because of one nutjob who falsely claims to be acting in the name of God. The fact that you've actually convinced yourself of otherwise makes me question your sanity. "Yes, because this crazy guy said God ordered this man to rape and murder lil children, which he did, God and/or His and/or practitioners of His religion must be crazy. Let's completely disregard the obviously maniacle mentality of the individual who actually committed this crime..."...

I guess I'm completely logical and justified in believing that all atheists are nuts when one of y'all murders and rapes. I guess it's not the individual that should be held accountable for his or her actions, but rather the "complex" that said individual claims to be affiliated with. Right?

You religion bashers honestly make me cringe. 

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

I was reading about the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case recently and I thought, why aren't more religious people considered insane? Here we have a guy claiming to be the prophet of god, promised 49 wives, and he's going around kidnapping kids and raping them under the guise of religion. Is it taboo to claim that religious people are delusional to the point of mental defect? Where do you draw the line between someone hearing the "voice of god" commanding them to build houses in Uganda and someone hearing "the voice of god" commanding them to attack Americans? One might be for good and one might be for evil but aren't both equally crazy?
I understand not all religious people are "extreme" but the idea of any religion is that you place your belief in something that cannot be proven right? If a child believed in Santa, it would be considered cute. If a grown man still put out milk and cookies every December 24th, he would be considered crazy right? I guess the point I'm trying to get across is, at what point are people considered insane? What is the difference between the guy rambling about god on the corner of the street and your neighborhood pastor?

Please don't humor OP. Dude/Dudette is clearly in the mood for a religion bashing seminar.

OP, you're obviously smart enough to acknowledge that the individual that committed these crimes, and in the source and inspiration from which this thread sprouted from, was ACTING UNDER THE GUISE OF RELIGION. Which means, he was using a religion as  FRONT/FACADE/SMOKESCREEN (these are all words that are synonymous with guise) to justify his innate evil. Which in turn means that the man himself was inherently rotting, and it was not "religion" that made him do what he did. That being the case, why the hate for religion and/or those who choose to be religious? It's quite naive of you, and your logic is facile, when you choose to demonize an entire "complex" because of one nutjob who falsely claims to be acting in the name of God. The fact that you've actually convinced yourself of otherwise makes me question your sanity. "Yes, because this crazy guy said God ordered this man to rape and murder lil children, which he did, God and/or His and/or practitioners of His religion must be crazy. Let's completely disregard the obviously maniacle mentality of the individual who actually committed this crime..."...

I guess I'm completely logical and justified in believing that all atheists are nuts when one of y'all murders and rapes. I guess it's not the individual that should be held accountable for his or her actions, but rather the "complex" that said individual claims to be affiliated with. Right?

You religion bashers honestly make me cringe. 

 

[veryanalytical85]

Human irrationality on society/majority's standards is considered insanity.

However innovators of that irrationality have been dubbed geniuses from time to time.

Weird how that works out...

 

[veryanalytical85]

Human irrationality on society/majority's standards is considered insanity.

However innovators of that irrationality have been dubbed geniuses from time to time.

Weird how that works out...

 

[mo matik]

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

I was reading about the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case recently and I thought, why aren't more religious people considered insane? Here we have a guy claiming to be the prophet of god, promised 49 wives, and he's going around kidnapping kids and raping them under the guise of religion. Is it taboo to claim that religious people are delusional to the point of mental defect? Where do you draw the line between someone hearing the "voice of god" commanding them to build houses in Uganda and someone hearing "the voice of god" commanding them to attack Americans? One might be for good and one might be for evil but aren't both equally crazy?
I understand not all religious people are "extreme" but the idea of any religion is that you place your belief in something that cannot be proven right? If a child believed in Santa, it would be considered cute. If a grown man still put out milk and cookies every December 24th, he would be considered crazy right? I guess the point I'm trying to get across is, at what point are people considered insane? What is the difference between the guy rambling about god on the corner of the street and your neighborhood pastor?

Matt Rossano wrote a nice writeup that might answer your question.

[h1]Why Religion Is Not Delusion[/h1]
http://www.huffingtonpost...-emnotem-d_b_611148.html

 

[mo matik]

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

I was reading about the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case recently and I thought, why aren't more religious people considered insane? Here we have a guy claiming to be the prophet of god, promised 49 wives, and he's going around kidnapping kids and raping them under the guise of religion. Is it taboo to claim that religious people are delusional to the point of mental defect? Where do you draw the line between someone hearing the "voice of god" commanding them to build houses in Uganda and someone hearing "the voice of god" commanding them to attack Americans? One might be for good and one might be for evil but aren't both equally crazy?
I understand not all religious people are "extreme" but the idea of any religion is that you place your belief in something that cannot be proven right? If a child believed in Santa, it would be considered cute. If a grown man still put out milk and cookies every December 24th, he would be considered crazy right? I guess the point I'm trying to get across is, at what point are people considered insane? What is the difference between the guy rambling about god on the corner of the street and your neighborhood pastor?

Matt Rossano wrote a nice writeup that might answer your question.

[h1]Why Religion Is Not Delusion[/h1]
http://www.huffingtonpost...-emnotem-d_b_611148.html

 

[kix4kix]

You know in all my time on here, I see the same debate over and over. The athiests who think that their opinions on religion spurn the entire functionality angle. Of course there are two rational sides to the issue, you can make that argument for just about any topic. Hence the entire existance of "debate", however, what does cause me to giggle everytime I see one of these religion threads pop up, it is 9 times out of 10 created by someone bashing religion. Seems one side is more bent on expressing their disdain for ones belief in something, than the beliviers are of preaching. You tell me who the condescending are.

 

[kix4kix]

You know in all my time on here, I see the same debate over and over. The athiests who think that their opinions on religion spurn the entire functionality angle. Of course there are two rational sides to the issue, you can make that argument for just about any topic. Hence the entire existance of "debate", however, what does cause me to giggle everytime I see one of these religion threads pop up, it is 9 times out of 10 created by someone bashing religion. Seems one side is more bent on expressing their disdain for ones belief in something, than the beliviers are of preaching. You tell me who the condescending are.

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

I was reading about the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case recently and I thought, why aren't more religious people considered insane? Here we have a guy claiming to be the prophet of god, promised 49 wives, and he's going around kidnapping kids and raping them under the guise of religion. Is it taboo to claim that religious people are delusional to the point of mental defect? Where do you draw the line between someone hearing the "voice of god" commanding them to build houses in Uganda and someone hearing "the voice of god" commanding them to attack Americans? One might be for good and one might be for evil but aren't both equally crazy?
I understand not all religious people are "extreme" but the idea of any religion is that you place your belief in something that cannot be proven right? If a child believed in Santa, it would be considered cute. If a grown man still put out milk and cookies every December 24th, he would be considered crazy right? I guess the point I'm trying to get across is, at what point are people considered insane? What is the difference between the guy rambling about god on the corner of the street and your neighborhood pastor?

Matt Rossano wrote a nice writeup that might answer your question.

[h1]Why Religion Is Not Delusion[/h1]
http://www.huffingtonpost...-emnotem-d_b_611148.html

Thanks for the article. The author of the piece is approaching it wearing the "psychologist" coat but he's completely out of touch with, or intentionally ignoring, what people mean when they call religious folk delusional. He's giving a psychological definition when a dictionary definition fits our needs perfectly fine.
I could try to write up how I personally feel but another person commenting on the article summed it up much better than I could.

The author presents us with a startling set of false choices and straw-man arguments...starting with demanding that we use the DSM IV definition of delusional, which clinically defines a mental illness, rather than the common definition of delusional used by we laymen, contained in The Oxford Dictionary of the English Language, whose preferred definition is: "A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence."

Certainly when I call religious people "delusional", my intent is not to clinically diagnose a mental illness; I believe most others who understand the delusional nature of religion understand it in this way, as well.

Since Dr Rossano seems to understand how "clinicians cringe when diagnostic terms get tossed about willy-nilly", perhaps he should not engage in that behavior quite so cavalierly.

Secondly, the god of Christians, Jews and Muslims is very different to the gods the rest of religious humanity currently worships, and since knowledge of that god is only about 3500 years old, worship of the god of Abraham is entirely different to the worship of gods humans have demonstrably practiced for at least the preceding 40,000 years and possibly as much as 1.2 million years preceding the Jewish revelation of Yaweh.

You can bet that modern Jews, Christians and Muslims consider all those preceding religions, and all current non-Abrahamic religions, "delusional", as well as each others' religions.

Just because many people may suffer the same delusions does not make them any less delusional.

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

I was reading about the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case recently and I thought, why aren't more religious people considered insane? Here we have a guy claiming to be the prophet of god, promised 49 wives, and he's going around kidnapping kids and raping them under the guise of religion. Is it taboo to claim that religious people are delusional to the point of mental defect? Where do you draw the line between someone hearing the "voice of god" commanding them to build houses in Uganda and someone hearing "the voice of god" commanding them to attack Americans? One might be for good and one might be for evil but aren't both equally crazy?
I understand not all religious people are "extreme" but the idea of any religion is that you place your belief in something that cannot be proven right? If a child believed in Santa, it would be considered cute. If a grown man still put out milk and cookies every December 24th, he would be considered crazy right? I guess the point I'm trying to get across is, at what point are people considered insane? What is the difference between the guy rambling about god on the corner of the street and your neighborhood pastor?

Matt Rossano wrote a nice writeup that might answer your question.

[h1]Why Religion Is Not Delusion[/h1]
http://www.huffingtonpost...-emnotem-d_b_611148.html

Thanks for the article. The author of the piece is approaching it wearing the "psychologist" coat but he's completely out of touch with, or intentionally ignoring, what people mean when they call religious folk delusional. He's giving a psychological definition when a dictionary definition fits our needs perfectly fine.
I could try to write up how I personally feel but another person commenting on the article summed it up much better than I could.

The author presents us with a startling set of false choices and straw-man arguments...starting with demanding that we use the DSM IV definition of delusional, which clinically defines a mental illness, rather than the common definition of delusional used by we laymen, contained in The Oxford Dictionary of the English Language, whose preferred definition is: "A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence."

Certainly when I call religious people "delusional", my intent is not to clinically diagnose a mental illness; I believe most others who understand the delusional nature of religion understand it in this way, as well.

Since Dr Rossano seems to understand how "clinicians cringe when diagnostic terms get tossed about willy-nilly", perhaps he should not engage in that behavior quite so cavalierly.

Secondly, the god of Christians, Jews and Muslims is very different to the gods the rest of religious humanity currently worships, and since knowledge of that god is only about 3500 years old, worship of the god of Abraham is entirely different to the worship of gods humans have demonstrably practiced for at least the preceding 40,000 years and possibly as much as 1.2 million years preceding the Jewish revelation of Yaweh.

You can bet that modern Jews, Christians and Muslims consider all those preceding religions, and all current non-Abrahamic religions, "delusional", as well as each others' religions.

Just because many people may suffer the same delusions does not make them any less delusional.

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

I was reading about the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case recently and I thought, why aren't more religious people considered insane? Here we have a guy claiming to be the prophet of god, promised 49 wives, and he's going around kidnapping kids and raping them under the guise of religion. Is it taboo to claim that religious people are delusional to the point of mental defect? Where do you draw the line between someone hearing the "voice of god" commanding them to build houses in Uganda and someone hearing "the voice of god" commanding them to attack Americans? One might be for good and one might be for evil but aren't both equally crazy?
I understand not all religious people are "extreme" but the idea of any religion is that you place your belief in something that cannot be proven right? If a child believed in Santa, it would be considered cute. If a grown man still put out milk and cookies every December 24th, he would be considered crazy right? I guess the point I'm trying to get across is, at what point are people considered insane? What is the difference between the guy rambling about god on the corner of the street and your neighborhood pastor?

Please don't humor OP. Dude/Dudette is clearly in the mood for a religion bashing seminar.

OP, you're obviously smart enough to acknowledge that the individual that committed these crimes, and in the source and inspiration from which this thread sprouted from, was ACTING UNDER THE GUISE OF RELIGION. Which means, he was using a religion as  FRONT/FACADE/SMOKESCREEN (these are all words that are synonymous with guise) to justify his innate evil. Which in turn means that the man himself was inherently rotting, and it was not "religion" that made him do what he did. That being the case, why the hate for religion and/or those who choose to be religious? It's quite naive of you, and your logic is facile, when you choose to demonize an entire "complex" because of one nutjob who falsely claims to be acting in the name of God. The fact that you've actually convinced yourself of otherwise makes me question your sanity. "Yes, because this crazy guy said God ordered this man to rape and murder lil children, which he did, God and/or His and/or practitioners of His religion must be crazy. Let's completely disregard the obviously maniacle mentality of the individual who actually committed this crime..."...

I guess I'm completely logical and justified in believing that all atheists are nuts when one of y'all murders and rapes. I guess it's not the individual that should be held accountable for his or her actions, but rather the "complex" that said individual claims to be affiliated with. Right?

You religion bashers honestly make me cringe. 

I honestly feel like I sound like a broken record. Again, I'm not singling out any one instance as to why I believe religion to be a delusion, rather, I'm pointing out this one specific case because it was what I was reading at the time. 

The question I keep posing is why when someone does something evil, according to our societies norms, because "god told him to do it" that he is insane but when someone does something good, according to our societies norms, because "god told him to do it" that he is normal? A man could volunteer at homeless shelters on his weekends, donate half his salary to fighting famine in Africa, and judge the Wednesday night bingo games at the senior center, but I'd still consider him insane if he does all of the above because an invisible force compelled him to do it. Of course we could go deeper down the rabbit hole and question the fact that since there are so many different religions in this world could it be that ALL of them are wrong? And don't believers in each religion think that believers of the other religions are delusional too? When we talk about people starting wars and killing each other because of a difference in belief in unquantifiable things, we clearly see the divide between those who believe and those who don't. Atheists/agnostics are not going to bomb a mosque or a synagogue. You can lay the blame solely on individuals but can you honestly say that religion doesn't play ANY part in pushing that behavior?

I also disagree with your use of "innate evil" and "inherently rotting". Those are YOUR religious beliefs, let's not thrust those upon everyone alright? I believe the man is insane but I don't think he was born evil.

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

I was reading about the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case recently and I thought, why aren't more religious people considered insane? Here we have a guy claiming to be the prophet of god, promised 49 wives, and he's going around kidnapping kids and raping them under the guise of religion. Is it taboo to claim that religious people are delusional to the point of mental defect? Where do you draw the line between someone hearing the "voice of god" commanding them to build houses in Uganda and someone hearing "the voice of god" commanding them to attack Americans? One might be for good and one might be for evil but aren't both equally crazy?
I understand not all religious people are "extreme" but the idea of any religion is that you place your belief in something that cannot be proven right? If a child believed in Santa, it would be considered cute. If a grown man still put out milk and cookies every December 24th, he would be considered crazy right? I guess the point I'm trying to get across is, at what point are people considered insane? What is the difference between the guy rambling about god on the corner of the street and your neighborhood pastor?

Please don't humor OP. Dude/Dudette is clearly in the mood for a religion bashing seminar.

OP, you're obviously smart enough to acknowledge that the individual that committed these crimes, and in the source and inspiration from which this thread sprouted from, was ACTING UNDER THE GUISE OF RELIGION. Which means, he was using a religion as  FRONT/FACADE/SMOKESCREEN (these are all words that are synonymous with guise) to justify his innate evil. Which in turn means that the man himself was inherently rotting, and it was not "religion" that made him do what he did. That being the case, why the hate for religion and/or those who choose to be religious? It's quite naive of you, and your logic is facile, when you choose to demonize an entire "complex" because of one nutjob who falsely claims to be acting in the name of God. The fact that you've actually convinced yourself of otherwise makes me question your sanity. "Yes, because this crazy guy said God ordered this man to rape and murder lil children, which he did, God and/or His and/or practitioners of His religion must be crazy. Let's completely disregard the obviously maniacle mentality of the individual who actually committed this crime..."...

I guess I'm completely logical and justified in believing that all atheists are nuts when one of y'all murders and rapes. I guess it's not the individual that should be held accountable for his or her actions, but rather the "complex" that said individual claims to be affiliated with. Right?

You religion bashers honestly make me cringe. 

I honestly feel like I sound like a broken record. Again, I'm not singling out any one instance as to why I believe religion to be a delusion, rather, I'm pointing out this one specific case because it was what I was reading at the time. 

The question I keep posing is why when someone does something evil, according to our societies norms, because "god told him to do it" that he is insane but when someone does something good, according to our societies norms, because "god told him to do it" that he is normal? A man could volunteer at homeless shelters on his weekends, donate half his salary to fighting famine in Africa, and judge the Wednesday night bingo games at the senior center, but I'd still consider him insane if he does all of the above because an invisible force compelled him to do it. Of course we could go deeper down the rabbit hole and question the fact that since there are so many different religions in this world could it be that ALL of them are wrong? And don't believers in each religion think that believers of the other religions are delusional too? When we talk about people starting wars and killing each other because of a difference in belief in unquantifiable things, we clearly see the divide between those who believe and those who don't. Atheists/agnostics are not going to bomb a mosque or a synagogue. You can lay the blame solely on individuals but can you honestly say that religion doesn't play ANY part in pushing that behavior?

I also disagree with your use of "innate evil" and "inherently rotting". Those are YOUR religious beliefs, let's not thrust those upon everyone alright? I believe the man is insane but I don't think he was born evil.

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

You know in all my time on here, I see the same debate over and over. The athiests who think that their opinions on religion spurn the entire functionality angle. Of course there are two rational sides to the issue, you can make that argument for just about any topic. Hence the entire existance of "debate", however, what does cause me to giggle everytime I see one of these religion threads pop up, it is 9 times out of 10 created by someone bashing religion. Seems one side is more bent on expressing their disdain for ones belief in something, than the beliviers are of preaching. You tell me who the condescending are.

I'm waiting for someone religious to make an atheism/agnosticism bashing thread. I can think of a couple NTers having a field day. 

And of course it's atheists/agnostics making these threads, the majority of Americans are religious so it's only natural that those that are believers are comfortable with how things are. They have their support groups in their churches where they can constantly reaffirm to one another why what they believe in is right. Believing religion to be a delusion isn't exactly a community activity so of course people that hold those views are more fragmented.

It might come off as condescending, and maybe it is, but how else can it come off when one side tries to root their argument in logic while the other side clings onto their backward beliefs based on fantasy (virgin birth, noah's ark, jonah and the whale, garden of eden, zombie resurrection, etc.)? I'm curious how a religious person could be condescending towards someone atheist or agnostic. 

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

You know in all my time on here, I see the same debate over and over. The athiests who think that their opinions on religion spurn the entire functionality angle. Of course there are two rational sides to the issue, you can make that argument for just about any topic. Hence the entire existance of "debate", however, what does cause me to giggle everytime I see one of these religion threads pop up, it is 9 times out of 10 created by someone bashing religion. Seems one side is more bent on expressing their disdain for ones belief in something, than the beliviers are of preaching. You tell me who the condescending are.

I'm waiting for someone religious to make an atheism/agnosticism bashing thread. I can think of a couple NTers having a field day. 

And of course it's atheists/agnostics making these threads, the majority of Americans are religious so it's only natural that those that are believers are comfortable with how things are. They have their support groups in their churches where they can constantly reaffirm to one another why what they believe in is right. Believing religion to be a delusion isn't exactly a community activity so of course people that hold those views are more fragmented.

It might come off as condescending, and maybe it is, but how else can it come off when one side tries to root their argument in logic while the other side clings onto their backward beliefs based on fantasy (virgin birth, noah's ark, jonah and the whale, garden of eden, zombie resurrection, etc.)? I'm curious how a religious person could be condescending towards someone atheist or agnostic. 

 

[antonlavey]

This is a 2 sided argument, the only reason religious folks think atheists/agnostics are condescending is because deep down they know their beliefs are bull.

 

[antonlavey]

This is a 2 sided argument, the only reason religious folks think atheists/agnostics are condescending is because deep down they know their beliefs are bull.

 

[itsluckyseven]

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

I was reading about the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case recently and I thought, why aren't more religious people considered insane? Here we have a guy claiming to be the prophet of god, promised 49 wives, and he's going around kidnapping kids and raping them under the guise of religion. Is it taboo to claim that religious people are delusional to the point of mental defect? Where do you draw the line between someone hearing the "voice of god" commanding them to build houses in Uganda and someone hearing "the voice of god" commanding them to attack Americans? One might be for good and one might be for evil but aren't both equally crazy?
I understand not all religious people are "extreme" but the idea of any religion is that you place your belief in something that cannot be proven right? If a child believed in Santa, it would be considered cute. If a grown man still put out milk and cookies every December 24th, he would be considered crazy right? I guess the point I'm trying to get across is, at what point are people considered insane? What is the difference between the guy rambling about god on the corner of the street and your neighborhood pastor?

Please don't humor OP. Dude/Dudette is clearly in the mood for a religion bashing seminar.

OP, you're obviously smart enough to acknowledge that the individual that committed these crimes, and in the source and inspiration from which this thread sprouted from, was ACTING UNDER THE GUISE OF RELIGION. Which means, he was using a religion as  FRONT/FACADE/SMOKESCREEN (these are all words that are synonymous with guise) to justify his innate evil. Which in turn means that the man himself was inherently rotting, and it was not "religion" that made him do what he did. That being the case, why the hate for religion and/or those who choose to be religious? It's quite naive of you, and your logic is facile, when you choose to demonize an entire "complex" because of one nutjob who falsely claims to be acting in the name of God. The fact that you've actually convinced yourself of otherwise makes me question your sanity. "Yes, because this crazy guy said God ordered this man to rape and murder lil children, which he did, God and/or His and/or practitioners of His religion must be crazy. Let's completely disregard the obviously maniacle mentality of the individual who actually committed this crime..."...

I guess I'm completely logical and justified in believing that all atheists are nuts when one of y'all murders and rapes. I guess it's not the individual that should be held accountable for his or her actions, but rather the "complex" that said individual claims to be affiliated with. Right?

You religion bashers honestly make me cringe. 

I fail to understand how anyone can so readily assert that the man OP referenced was operating under the guise of religion.  I don't believe any of us are in the proper position to say whether or not this man truly believed that he was acting in accordance with the "voice of god."

Even still, if we grant that this man was operating under the guise of religion, how can you differentiate this individual from the story of Abraham and the binding of Issac?

In the bible, Abraham was prepared to follow through with what the "voice of god" commanded him to do.  Namely, to sacrifice his child.  If that story showed up in the news today, you guys would be going nuts and screaming for the death penalty or a life sentence.  When you guys read about it the "good book," you're so ready to praise Abraham for his unwavering faith...

Really, what's the difference?  Why is one considered a nut job and the other the "Knight of Faith?"

 

[itsluckyseven]

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

I was reading about the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case recently and I thought, why aren't more religious people considered insane? Here we have a guy claiming to be the prophet of god, promised 49 wives, and he's going around kidnapping kids and raping them under the guise of religion. Is it taboo to claim that religious people are delusional to the point of mental defect? Where do you draw the line between someone hearing the "voice of god" commanding them to build houses in Uganda and someone hearing "the voice of god" commanding them to attack Americans? One might be for good and one might be for evil but aren't both equally crazy?
I understand not all religious people are "extreme" but the idea of any religion is that you place your belief in something that cannot be proven right? If a child believed in Santa, it would be considered cute. If a grown man still put out milk and cookies every December 24th, he would be considered crazy right? I guess the point I'm trying to get across is, at what point are people considered insane? What is the difference between the guy rambling about god on the corner of the street and your neighborhood pastor?

Please don't humor OP. Dude/Dudette is clearly in the mood for a religion bashing seminar.

OP, you're obviously smart enough to acknowledge that the individual that committed these crimes, and in the source and inspiration from which this thread sprouted from, was ACTING UNDER THE GUISE OF RELIGION. Which means, he was using a religion as  FRONT/FACADE/SMOKESCREEN (these are all words that are synonymous with guise) to justify his innate evil. Which in turn means that the man himself was inherently rotting, and it was not "religion" that made him do what he did. That being the case, why the hate for religion and/or those who choose to be religious? It's quite naive of you, and your logic is facile, when you choose to demonize an entire "complex" because of one nutjob who falsely claims to be acting in the name of God. The fact that you've actually convinced yourself of otherwise makes me question your sanity. "Yes, because this crazy guy said God ordered this man to rape and murder lil children, which he did, God and/or His and/or practitioners of His religion must be crazy. Let's completely disregard the obviously maniacle mentality of the individual who actually committed this crime..."...

I guess I'm completely logical and justified in believing that all atheists are nuts when one of y'all murders and rapes. I guess it's not the individual that should be held accountable for his or her actions, but rather the "complex" that said individual claims to be affiliated with. Right?

You religion bashers honestly make me cringe. 

I fail to understand how anyone can so readily assert that the man OP referenced was operating under the guise of religion.  I don't believe any of us are in the proper position to say whether or not this man truly believed that he was acting in accordance with the "voice of god."

Even still, if we grant that this man was operating under the guise of religion, how can you differentiate this individual from the story of Abraham and the binding of Issac?

In the bible, Abraham was prepared to follow through with what the "voice of god" commanded him to do.  Namely, to sacrifice his child.  If that story showed up in the news today, you guys would be going nuts and screaming for the death penalty or a life sentence.  When you guys read about it the "good book," you're so ready to praise Abraham for his unwavering faith...

Really, what's the difference?  Why is one considered a nut job and the other the "Knight of Faith?"

 

[josebronx]

Originally Posted by YouMadYouBad

I don't know why/how people can believe in god. The basic instincts of a human being is to believe or perceive what are 5 senses can react to. You cant see god, you cant hear god, you cant touch god, you cant smell god, you cant taste god, how can you believe in god? Religion is an excuse for people to do bad on Friday and feel good about themselves on Sunday.

dont know either and for some reason human beings have been doing it for thousands of years, from aztecs to greeks to africans etc....

Its That Dude wrote:

---

Question to all the religious people - why is it so hard to believe that this rapist and God talked to each other? How do you know that this didn't happen?  If people can have a relationship with God, why this his not valid?

If you believe in personal relationships with God, then there is enough reasonable doubt to let this guy go free.  


"when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."

c'mon son

 

[josebronx]

Originally Posted by YouMadYouBad

I don't know why/how people can believe in god. The basic instincts of a human being is to believe or perceive what are 5 senses can react to. You cant see god, you cant hear god, you cant touch god, you cant smell god, you cant taste god, how can you believe in god? Religion is an excuse for people to do bad on Friday and feel good about themselves on Sunday.

dont know either and for some reason human beings have been doing it for thousands of years, from aztecs to greeks to africans etc....

Its That Dude wrote:

---

Question to all the religious people - why is it so hard to believe that this rapist and God talked to each other? How do you know that this didn't happen?  If people can have a relationship with God, why this his not valid?

If you believe in personal relationships with God, then there is enough reasonable doubt to let this guy go free.  


"when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."

c'mon son

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by kix4kix

You know in all my time on here, I see the same debate over and over. The athiests who think that their opinions on religion spurn the entire functionality angle. Of course there are two rational sides to the issue, you can make that argument for just about any topic. Hence the entire existance of "debate", however, what does cause me to giggle everytime I see one of these religion threads pop up, it is 9 times out of 10 created by someone bashing religion. Seems one side is more bent on expressing their disdain for ones belief in something, than the beliviers are of preaching. You tell me who the condescending are.

I'm waiting for someone religious to make an atheism/agnosticism bashing thread. I can think of a couple NTers having a field day. 

And of course it's atheists/agnostics making these threads, the majority of Americans are religious so it's only natural that those that are believers are comfortable with how things are. They have their support groups in their churches where they can constantly reaffirm to one another why what they believe in is right. Believing religion to be a delusion isn't exactly a community activity so of course people that hold those views are more fragmented.

It might come off as condescending, and maybe it is, but how else can it come off when one side tries to root their argument in logic while the other side clings onto their backward beliefs based on fantasy (virgin birth, noah's ark, jonah and the whale, garden of eden, zombie resurrection, etc.)? I'm curious how a religious person could be condescending towards someone atheist or agnostic. 

but this isn't exclusively an american board. There are several regions and countries specifically in Europe where Christianity (the only religion most athiests know of) is on the decline in every age category. And one of the main gripes with athiests is that religious folks consider themselves morally above others, I was just saying threads like these (and your response) show that vice versa rings true.

     

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by kix4kix

You know in all my time on here, I see the same debate over and over. The athiests who think that their opinions on religion spurn the entire functionality angle. Of course there are two rational sides to the issue, you can make that argument for just about any topic. Hence the entire existance of "debate", however, what does cause me to giggle everytime I see one of these religion threads pop up, it is 9 times out of 10 created by someone bashing religion. Seems one side is more bent on expressing their disdain for ones belief in something, than the beliviers are of preaching. You tell me who the condescending are.

I'm waiting for someone religious to make an atheism/agnosticism bashing thread. I can think of a couple NTers having a field day. 

And of course it's atheists/agnostics making these threads, the majority of Americans are religious so it's only natural that those that are believers are comfortable with how things are. They have their support groups in their churches where they can constantly reaffirm to one another why what they believe in is right. Believing religion to be a delusion isn't exactly a community activity so of course people that hold those views are more fragmented.

It might come off as condescending, and maybe it is, but how else can it come off when one side tries to root their argument in logic while the other side clings onto their backward beliefs based on fantasy (virgin birth, noah's ark, jonah and the whale, garden of eden, zombie resurrection, etc.)? I'm curious how a religious person could be condescending towards someone atheist or agnostic. 

but this isn't exclusively an american board. There are several regions and countries specifically in Europe where Christianity (the only religion most athiests know of) is on the decline in every age category. And one of the main gripes with athiests is that religious folks consider themselves morally above others, I was just saying threads like these (and your response) show that vice versa rings true.