The all new, totally accepted, bigotry thread - "Blame a Christian"

[Old Hippy]

In other words, swallowing your arrogance and realizing that neither earth, nor you and what you think, are the center of the universe.

actually it could be argued ... that anywhere is the centre of the Universe

 

[kochman]

actually it could be argued ... that anywhere is the centre of the Universe

Hahahah, that's somewhat funny.
It could... however, that would be based on the universe is infinite concept, and therefore it has no center, really.

 

[timtofly]

He looks at observations and goes about interpreting them in all sorts of creative ways.

He doesn't have a 3rd party giving him a feeling from which he distils hypotheses.

Who said anything about a third party? Technically it is just the manipulation of neurons. If purchance a combination happens at exactly the right moment in time, a previous unknown may become a known. The facts may have been there, but combining the facts in a new thought leads to breakthroughs in science and other areas of the human existence. I grant you that sometimes a breakthrough happens from an accidental chemical spill, but that would not explain philosophy.

You're either not reading what I write or what I reply to, or you find the question too hard to answer. I don't deny anything, I'm asking how one goes from an unexplainable emotion into a specific set of rules.

I'm not the one who brought up the unexplainable emotion. I'm just asking.

What rules are you talking about then? There does not need to be any new rules created as far as I know. There are people all the time who keep interpreting the Bible to explain their own opinion in a way to draw people into their way of thinking. That would be your third party rule makers. No one can live up to every rule, especially the ones in the Bible. That was not the point of the law. The point of the law is to show us that we are failures and cannot live up to God's standards. People who think they can or have a handle on it, are just deceiving themselves and all who follow them.

Only God can live up to God's standards!

 

[Formaldehyde]

In other words, swallowing your arrogance and realizing that neither earth, nor you and what you think, are the center of the universe.

Ironically, that is exactly what got Galileo in so much trouble with the Pope.

Who said that God only communicates with hose who already believe in Him? That's how a lot of people come to believe in Him... He effects them spiritually.

How can one tell the difference? If you hear voices... you're schizophrenic.

Was it different in the past? Perhaps... but again, people here get so wrapped up on dissing Christianity by taking all these stories literally... then criticize the Christians who take these stories literally. It makes no sense, really... people should try to be consistent.

What about Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon church? There are numerous others who claim that God or Jesus talked to them.

 

[Tarquelne]

If I'm to understand that heaven is full of people with zero capacity for critical thought, then I'd frankly prefer purgatory.

You do indeed misunderstand. But not as much as the other poster. The "faith of a child" is faith untainted by the excessive rationalizations, laboriously self-serving excuses, and the fetishisms that accrete around the faith of many adults.

It depends on the age, of course. But most children can recognize a idiotic circular argument when they hear it. It can take years of careful guidance from adults to make them comfortable with accepting tripe as the pinnacle of theological thought.

A *child* hopes for the best, and trusts. And - to pick an example at random - generally draws back from the thought that hurting people is Good. Fun, yeah. But not Good.

It takes an adult to wield that trust as a weapon for enforcing his own cultural norms. Or, increasingly, idiosyncratic social failings.

 

[Leoreth]

Who said that God only communicates with hose who already believe in Him? That's how a lot of people come to believe in Him... He effects them spiritually.

What does spiritually mean? It feels like a meaningless buzzword to elevate alleged religious experiences over other psychological phenomena.

And how does God speaking to someone convert people? I'm not talking about atheists where this would make some sense, but do you seriously claim that when someone in the Islamic world has an experience that might or might not be religious, he would convert to evangelical Christianity afterwards? Does God preface every spiritual experience with a declaration of the correct religion?

How can one tell the difference? If you hear voices... you're schizophrenic.

So if you hear God's voice, you're schizophrenic?

And before you try to cop out through more vague spiritual or emotional experiences, there are other diagnosable psychological states that refer to such episodes. Again, how to tell the difference, distinguish God from genuine psychological illness?

Was it different in the past? Perhaps... but again, people here get so wrapped up on dissing Christianity by taking all these stories literally... then criticize the Christians who take these stories literally. It makes no sense, really... people should try to be consistent.

Why is that inconsistent? I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Which stories?

 

[Cutlass]

My question was actually quite serious. Assuming God communicates or emotionally affects certain people (interestingly only those who already believe in him), what about shizophrenic people who simply hear voices but attribute them to their deity of choice? How can one tell the difference?

And especially, since we already have the claim that the latter can be diagnosed, it must be possible to clearly distinguish it from true divine inspiration, so that would mean that true divine inspiration could also be diagnosed, wouldn't it?

Well, generally you can't. Now if a person was constantly hearing voices, and didn't otherwise make claims of religious leadership, and under the right conditions, then they would likely be dismissed as mentally ill. Maybe even confined for it. But when people who are not otherwise know to be mentally ill start saying god is speaking to them, and they have some message that resonates with at least a few people, then they become prophets. Hell, most religious groups probably started off with crazies. Those that didn't start with fraudsters.

 

[Akka]

But people with schizophrenia usually don't just have one episode... and they are usually diagnosable... so, your point is pointless here.

My point is not "people who believes in God are schizophrenic", my point is "what you describe looks more like delusion than supernatural connection".
And considering the omnipresence of delusion in people, my Ockham's Razor take on this is to trust more in people being delusional than having a revelation from God.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Well, generally you can't. Now if a person was constantly hearing voices, and didn't otherwise make claims of religious leadership, and under the right conditions, then they would likely be dismissed as mentally ill. Maybe even confined for it. But when people who are not otherwise know to be mentally ill start saying god is speaking to them, and they have some message that resonates with at least a few people, then they become prophets. Hell, most religious groups probably started off with crazies. Those that didn't start with fraudsters.

If you haven't watched Elmer Gantry, you should. It won Burt Lancaster a best actor.


Link to video.


Link to video.

 

[timtofly]

What does spiritually mean? It feels like a meaningless buzzword to elevate alleged religious experiences over other psychological phenomena.

I am not answereing for kochman; but my take on it. Spirituality has been passed over by a modern understanding of Philosophy and other related fields like Psychology. The Bible speaks of the 3rd person of the Trinity as the Holy Ghost or Spirit. This manifestation would empower an individual to be able to do things that would take years of education to accomplish. Sorta like new age enlightenment, rational people tend to dimiss it as hogwash, on the grounds that it is impossible to do, outside human self education.

And how does God speaking to someone convert people? I'm not talking about atheists where this would make some sense, but do you seriously claim that when someone in the Islamic world has an experience that might or might not be religious, he would convert to evangelical Christianity afterwards? Does God preface every spiritual experience with a declaration of the correct religion?

If the Spirit of God empowers one, it would be obvious to that person, while not neccessarily obvious to others. Accepting the Spirit is conversion of that individual, not passing it on to necessarily convert others. It is personal, not a "group" thing. It has nothing to do with religion. Religion is just man's attempt at producing their own relationship with God. Religion is not God's relationship with man.

So if you hear God's voice, you're schizophrenic?

And before you try to cop out through more vague spiritual or emotional experiences, there are other diagnosable psychological states that refer to such episodes. Again, how to tell the difference, distinguish God from genuine psychological illness?

Most people today are educated from an early age to discredit "spiritual" things as being abnormal. We are rational beings and do not need an outside force to control us. Most spirit controlled people are not vocal about it, but live their daily lives. That is why when some who do make claims about God telling them to do things like kill their children, it is dubious at best.

Why is that inconsistent? I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Which stories?

I think that kochman was saying that the stories of people who experience dillusions are being equated with a literal "God" experience. Like Akka, humans would rather it be a delusion, because if it were a legitimate "God" experience that would validate God. I would agree though that rationalist diss both said experiences whether legit or not, and diss those who take the Bible literally, and they are consistent in doing so. They just diss God by proxy, and put their "faith" in the fact that He does not exist. The alternative would ruin years of human enlightenment.

 

[JollyRoger]

I think that kochman was saying that the stories of people who experience dillusions are being equated with a literal "God" experience.

Been going on for thousands of years. The Bible is full of such examples.

 

[timtofly]

Been going on for thousandes of years. The Bible is full of such examples.

According to rational thought?

 

[Oerdin]

Christians control just about everything in this country yet they constantly try to pretend they're a victim because someone dares to ask them to please stop trying to legislate their religion on everyone else. What hypocrites.

 

[JollyRoger]

According to rational thought?

It's the same thought process that lets me know Zeus is a myth.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

What does spiritually mean? It feels like a meaningless buzzword to elevate alleged religious experiences over other psychological phenomena.

And why can't the physical world be the source of spiritual inspiration ? It's an appreciation of nature's beauty and the "wow , no way!" moment when I get my head around a fascinating scientific concept that stirs my spirit .

 

[timtofly]

It's the same thought process that lets me know Zeus is a myth.

Is "it" the same process that people had 2000 years ago?

 

[kochman]

What does spiritually mean? It feels like a meaningless buzzword to elevate alleged religious experiences over other psychological phenomena.

Hard to explain really... My best anology was love. Some people apparently never feel it either...

And how does God speaking to someone convert people?

Because they feel faith that they didn't before?

I'm not talking about atheists where this would make some sense, but do you seriously claim that when someone in the Islamic world has an experience that might or might not be religious, he would convert to evangelical Christianity afterwards?

It's been known to happen.

Does God preface every spiritual experience with a declaration of the correct religion?

Trolling.

So if you hear God's voice, you're schizophrenic?

Chances are, if you literally hear a voice, you are... but, I won't say that is the case 100% of the time. Very few people, even in thousands of years of Biblical history, claim to have literally heard God speaking to them.

Why is that inconsistent? I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Which stories?

Inconsistent because people, if the shoe fits, wear it, say things like... well, it is absurd that the Earth is only 6000 years old per the Biblical timeline (which I agree is absurd)... making the point that the word for word "fact" of the bible is clearly incorrect...

Then, turn around, and get all excited about one story or another and the very particular details of that story... insisting that is must be viewed in that very specific context (Isaac for example)... though they already believe other parts to be false.

 

[Quackers]

So, the British version of Newark and Detroit?

Link to video.

somewhat relevent

 

[Core Imposter]

I am not voting for NC Prop 8. I think it goes too far. Or maybe I will. Not sure. I guess I pray about it.

 

[Leoreth]

Because they feel faith that they didn't before?

Again, how to tell from the outside. Assuming that only one religion is right, how to tell apart the spiritual experience of a Buddhist and a Christian monk? Because under this premise, only one of them can be truly divinely inspired. And if you want to argue that it was in both cases the true (say, Christian) God who caused these divine inspirations, how can the Buddhist remain Buddhist after actually experiencing the Christian God?

It's been known to happen.

And the reverse has also been known to happen. Anecdotal evidence doesn't impress me.

Trolling.

You know what's also trolling? Calling other people trolls.

I on the other hand just employed the rhetorical tool of exaggeration to illustrate my point (and provoke a response). I'm sorry if I offended you, I thought people here were capable of taking pointed arguments in good faith.

Chances are, if you literally hear a voice, you are... but, I won't say that is the case 100% of the time. Very few people, even in thousands of years of Biblical history, claim to have literally heard God speaking to them.

I hear people claiming that all the time. Now you can say they don't mean it literally, why do they use this metaphor, then?

Inconsistent because people, if the shoe fits, wear it, say things like... well, it is absurd that the Earth is only 6000 years old per the Biblical timeline (which I agree is absurd)... making the point that the word for word "fact" of the bible is clearly incorrect...

Then, turn around, and get all excited about one story or another and the very particular details of that story... insisting that is must be viewed in that very specific context (Isaac for example)... though they already believe other parts to be false.

I think people who do that are trying to point out the inconsistencies by assuming that everything's factually right. Sometimes it's necessary to show people who think the Bible is completely correct the implications of this belief. Arguments from contradiction are not really limited to discussing the Bible.