Any christian who is reading this. Would you mind admitting that "Your religion MIGHT be wrong and there MIGHT not be a god at all?"

i wouldve made a poll but i dont know how to...

This is a test for my own curiosity of how christianity is partly based on fear and that most christians are ignorant of the absaloute definite truth that their religion "MIGHT!! be wrong"

i bet this wont happen, most christians just get really depressed and frustrated when they realise theres no avoiding that fact ¬¬

I praise Christians for having the absolute undying blind faith that they do. If only they could steer it into the right direction

i bet this wont happen, most christians just get really depressed and frustrated when they realise theres no avoiding that fact ¬¬

You never presented any facts.


I praise Christians for having the absolute undying blind faith that they do. If only they could steer it into the right direction

..and what would the "right direction" be exactly?

Although i do agree with the OP, that believing that Jesus Christ is the son of God, plus God at the same time, whilst being the holy spirit, whilst being the son of man, then dying for mankind, in order for them to be "saved" is just ridiculously silly.

It doesn't even make sense at all, and it makes me chuckle when Christians try to bring some sense of logic to it.

If you want to see a religion that can actually hold weight try Islam.

You never presented any facts.




..and what would the "right direction" be exactly?

Although i do agree with the OP, that believing that Jesus Christ is the son of God, plus God at the same time, whilst being the holy spirit, whilst being the son of man, then dying for mankind, in order for them to be "saved" is just ridiculously silly.

It does even make sense at all, and it makes me chuckle when Christians try to bring some sense of logic to it.

If you want to see a religion that can actually hold weight try Islam.

You wouldn't stack a jug of milk on top of a loaf of bread, so why would you believe in Islam?

You wouldn't stack a jug of milk on top of a loaf of bread, so why would you believe in Islam?

I never did say i believed in Islam. However, if you have any arguments to make against Islam..please do present them.

I never did say i believed in Islam. However, if you have any arguments to make against Islam..please do present them.

Well, i thought my point was pretty obvious. When you have a weak link in the chain, it breaks. There is no rational reason to belief in Christianity. I can back that up too, but I don't feel like it right now. So, how can Islam, which relies on the Judeo-Christian tradition to be more or less true also stand?

Also, I wasn't saying you personally believe in Islam. However, you made the claim that Islam holds weight, which then I used that for the metaphor. My point is Islam cannot hold weight because it relies on traditions that are certifiably unreasonable to believe.

I praise Christians for having the absolute undying blind faith that they do. If only they could steer it into the right direction

...'Absolute undying blind faith' is never an admirable thing. I think what you're getting at is that the commitment exhibited by them as a result of their 'absolute undying blind faith' is admirable. I can agree with this, but to say that the faith is laudable is ridiculous. Sometimes faith might be directed toward something true, or 'worthy' of being committed to, but having absolute faith in it is still bad, dangerous, and ridiculous.

Any christian who is reading this. Would you mind admitting that "Your religion MIGHT be wrong and there MIGHT not be a god at all?"

Yeah, I'll admit that. My religion might be wrong and there might not be a god at all. Strangely, I'm not afraid or depressed. I feel pretty good.

Not Christian, but of course I might be wrong.

Hell, more likely than not I am. But that doesn't change my beliefs.

G, there is most definitely a God. As to whether the churches and individuals of the world understand it or not is another matter.

And matters it does not.

You never presented any facts.






"christianity might be wrong" IS a fact

One of the reason I'm relatively liberal compared to many others I know is because I realize how silly it is to say my religion is infallable. Besides, if I were indeed to know for fact my religion is completely true, there would be no way I could have faith, and faith is integral to Christianity.

So, then faith is really a matter of what you want to be true versus what appears to be true (in most cases), would you say? I don't mean faith in the face of other evidence (though this certainly happens), but rather religious faith is more based on what a person wants to be true than for any particular reasoning.

It's possible to be wrong and yet still be right.

the G, I will admit that I might be wrong and that there may not be a God, if you will admit that you might be wrong, there may be a God, and that he will punish you for your sins if you reject his son Jesus Christ.

there may be a God, and that he will punish you for your sins if you reject his son Jesus Christ.

Cram it ya god wad.

the G, I will admit that I might be wrong and that there may not be a God, if you will admit that you might be wrong, there may be a God, and that he will punish you for your sins if you reject his son Jesus Christ.

never said there wasnt a god... pfft christians

why are u so fuckin hostile towards people that dont believe what you believe. I dont believe theres a god, but i never said there isnt one, no-one will ever know, because no matter how much proof there is that theres no god there still "might" be, "somewhere".... but thats always a christians cheap way out of bein proved wrong.

"and that he will punish you for your sins if you reject his son Jesus Christ"

why are yoiu always sure of what you say, thats what you've learnt at some point and automatically assume, i think you meant "he will probably punish you for your sins." Break out of your little habit of limiting your own opinions out of fear of offending "god"

never said there wasnt a god... pfft trolls

fixed

fixed

um.. there might not be a god


that it? am I done?

This thread made me think of my freshman year in college, and the discussion of pascals wager. For those who dont know Blaise pascal was a French philosopher who presented a philosophical gambit with the statement that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose.
I also think that it is pointless to have a thread like this, because what theological point will this subject reach. Getting devotees to doubt the existence of their God has no use, because doubt is an essential part of faith. Faith requires doubt, it requires meditation, but most of all it requires belief. Faith is not easy, and many times it is a struggle, and devotion is actually an admirable attribute.
Blind devotion on the other hand is not true faith, it is just a way to ignore your problems.

um.. there might not be a god


that it? am I done?

yeah...

This thread made me think of my freshman year in college, and the discussion of pascals wager. For those who dont know Blaise pascal was a French philosopher who presented a philosophical gambit with the statement that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose.
I also think that it is pointless to have a thread like this, because what theological point will this subject reach. Getting devotees to doubt the existence of their God has no use, because doubt is an essential part of faith. Faith requires doubt, it requires meditation, but most of all it requires belief. Faith is not easy, and many times it is a struggle, and devotion is actually an admirable attribute.
Blind devotion on the other hand is not true faith, it is just a way to ignore your problems.

didnt ask them to doubt their faith... just admit the fact there might not be a God, to a non-christian it seems like an easy thing to do and cant be denied. But personally... the significance of this thread is that ive learnt christians might just believe in God because they "want to" or cus theyre scared of not believing.

Could be wrong.

We all have different reasons. For the most part, those that I have talked to have a short list of events that they base faith on.

I have thought about it before and while I don't think my religion is wrong, I suppose there is some chance that it could be. That is what faith is, afterall. Putting your trust in something that's not completely 100% certain. You just have to believe that it is real.

I have thought about it before and while I don't think my religion is wrong, I suppose there is some chance that it could be. That is what faith is, afterall. Putting your trust in something that's not completely 100% certain. You just have to believe that it is real.

i dont get it... you dont need faith to know there might be a god, thats the truth whether you have faith or not, there really "might" be.

but are you saying faith is believing that something that isnt 100% certain is certain? Cus if thats how it is... its blatantly wrong, because it isnt certain, why believe its certain if you know its not. UNLESS, faith is denying yourself of realising that your belief is wrong...in which case you wouldnt need to "believe" it if you think its true.

......how can christians be so...blind.

again maybe ive got it all wrong... but i dont think there are any more possibilities, i dont thing you can even make anything else up.

And Then A Christian Entered The Conversation.

Let me outline what i will present here. i will first present my justification for faith, then i shall address the islam issue, and then i shall shoot down individuals.

alright, so now i explain my faith.

I have read the gospels, the story of christs life, as well as the rest of the bible. what i took from the gospels is one, the perfection of christ, two by comparison my own filth, and three, the presentation of christ as a manner of not of fixating on a external ideal, but as a solution to a ideal i always had but had never seen a perfect way to realize.

my ideal is simple, that everything SHOULD be right. no one should suffer, no one should hurt one another, no one should hate one another. war is evil, cruelty is evil, selfishness is evil, and they are all products of hatred, the animal side of us.

so i believe love is the perfect ideal, and hatred is the exact opposite. what is human in us, the few things that make humans more then animals, tends towards love. the natural, animal side, produces only hatred, no true 'love'. lust, animal affection, yes, but those are not answers to anything.

this ideal is completely satisfied by the proper biblical perspective. christ told us gods only command was to love god and one another. he embodied that ideal, and he in one movement swept away the hard, cold godship of the old testament, and replaced it simply with, 'love'. he died for our salvation, and rose again. i see that to mean that the path to 'god' is to seek to be christlike, that is, emulate perfection. knowing our weakness, his death and his words tell me that the love of god is enough to cover the difference between me and christ.

i believe that; that is my faith. now you ask, but what if that is not true? what if christ never, in fact, existed? what if its a lie?

and i ask you, what difference would that make? it certainly is a possibility. but what i hold as my ideal is not derived from gospel, but satisfied by it. if i learned beyond a shadow of a doubt christ was not a real human, i would still worship him, because he would nevertheless embody what i know as perfection. my actions would not be affected. i believe that god exists, as a syllogy with my postulate, 'christ', but if i learned it to be false, i would accept it, but certainly not change my actions! my ideal nonetheless exists, and the realization of it exists in the gospels, fact it fiction regardless.

i do not worship christ and god because i know they are REAL. i worship them because whether or not they are real is immaterial when held to the fact of their perfect embodiment of what i know as perfection. i would worship a fiction, if i did not believe in their fact.

Continued

what does it matter if they are real? it is in any case not relevant. what is relevant is whether or not your actions are serving to bring about heaven on earth - whether or not there is one in the sky. i can hope, but never be sure, but either way, it does not matter.

you might say, but what about truth? and i would say, what is truth? if you use its finicky and illusory presence as a excuse to act like a animal, or to justify the smallest act of hatred, i say, truth be damned! the 'truth' in my mind is what will realize perfection. not some binary system of containing the world within our senses.

and now i must address what i have touched upon, that is, the animal, and the human. for my argument, a distinction, clear and justified, must be made.

christianity, alone among the other belief systems in the world, is single minded in its promotion of the abolishment of the animal nature, and the enlightenment and glorification of the human 'spirit', where unnatural impulses such as real love come from.

christianity does not seek to submerge you into a hive mind, or to make you less then yourself. quite to the contrary, it's ultimate goal is for you to be truly and completely yourself, completely free from the tyranny of the animal world.

for example, a rule that confused me until recently, is a great way to explain. the "no sex before marriage" rule. why would that be important? what is that rule for?

that rule is in place so that REAL love is possible; it extracts copulation from its natural setting (anytime possible) and puts it into a mold where it can not get out of control. the animal in us tells us to fuck, but that is not US, it is not the human part of us telling us to fuck. its the chemicals that your brain produces sending impulses to you to copulate in order to pass on your genes and preserve the species. that is not you!

when you take sex, and restrict it to a certain time and place, what you have done is killed a small part of the animal that prevents you from being yourself. it fosters REAL love, not animal attraction. it brings two humans together, hopefully, for a unnatural reason, love. it is not done to assist the species, or pass on genes, or aid in survival. it is wholly HUMAN. two people that honor their vows and honestly work together, can create the most spiritual and deep love that exists, completely apart from any animal taint.

that is the whole point of everything in christianity, love, and transcendence from the animal self.

so that is my defense of my faith.


as for islam, the koran is one of my favorite books, and i have deep respect for some of the beliefs of the Muslim people. they are decent at heart, but their holy book contradicts itself, especially on the promotion of violence. it supports if rabidly someplace, and then decries it in the same circumstance elsewhere. also, there are many "animal" attractions in it. 'do this and satisfy X animal urge' which is a failing point, i believe.

so the arabs fight alot like crazy bastards, so we murder unborn children. it all evens out.

Any christian who is reading this. Would you mind admitting that "Your religion MIGHT be wrong and there MIGHT not be a god at all?"

This is a test for my own curiosity of how christianity is partly based on fear and that most christians are ignorant of the absaloute definite truth that their religion "MIGHT!! be wrong"


it sure might be wrong. i know i might be wrong.

religion is ALWAYS wrong. christ abolished it.


Although i do agree with the OP, that believing that Jesus Christ is the son of God, plus God at the same time, whilst being the holy spirit, whilst being the son of man, then dying for mankind, in order for them to be "saved" is just ridiculously silly.

It doesn't even make sense at all, and it makes me chuckle when Christians try to bring some sense of logic to it.


the idea of the trinity is not important in any event, but it merely says, that the "father, god, son, christ, and the holy spirit are both seperate and one".

this is mirrored in many other religions, and makes perfect sense, just not within euclidean geometry. science has shown that our perception of the universe is pathetic, if god exists, he is certainly supradimensional, and three-is-one is simple for something like that. but, as i said, its not a important concept, really. its not like you should act different regardless.


So, then faith is really a matter of what you want to be true versus what appears to be true (in most cases), would you say? I don't mean faith in the face of other evidence (though this certainly happens), but rather religious faith is more based on what a person wants to be true than for any particular reasoning.


conceiving in your mind perfection, idealizing the world, then realizing your vision is what all great men have done, what every good man should do. im not sure whether this was meant as a diss, but it certainly shouldn't be. a unwillingness to accept the 'facts' is a good thing. i will not accept that the world is dark and love is a fraud, therefore i love, as a striving towards the ideal. this is not negative!


never said there wasnt a god... pfft christians

why are u so fuckin hostile towards people that dont believe what you believe. I dont believe theres a god, but i never said there isnt one, no-one will ever know, because no matter how much proof there is that theres no god there still "might" be, "somewhere".... but thats always a christians cheap way out of bein proved wrong.

"and that he will punish you for your sins if you reject his son Jesus Christ"

why are yoiu always sure of what you say, thats what you've learnt at some point and automatically assume, i think you meant "he will probably punish you for your sins." Break out of your little habit of limiting your own opinions out of fear of offending "god"



i dont get it... you dont need faith to know there might be a god, thats the truth whether you have faith or not, there really "might" be.

but are you saying faith is believing that something that isnt 100% certain is certain? Cus if thats how it is... its blatantly wrong, because it isnt certain, why believe its certain if you know its not. UNLESS, faith is denying yourself of realising that your belief is wrong...in which case you wouldnt need to "believe" it if you think its true.

......how can christians be so...blind.

again maybe ive got it all wrong... but i dont think there are any more possibilities, i dont thing you can even make anything else up.


lets clear something up. christianity is not merely attended. less then a thousandth of a percent of the worlds most christian nation is really christian, despite the majority of "protestants". most "christians" understand their faith as nothing more then some vague patriotic tradition of subservience and ignorance. and as you go south, add in 'masturbating to nascar' 'beer' and completely contradictory elements such as racism, hatred and idiocy.

should you meet one of these, remenber, they are NOT christians. tell them to go read their bible again.

a real christian will be full of love, kindness, joy, all those things, will care very little about most things, and will be fairly intelligent. i think god will have mercy on those that are too stupid to really grasp the fucking idea, as long as they try, but remember, do not judge christianity based on them.

in fact, judging christianity on anything less then reading the bible, the whole thing, is a incomplete and illogical argument... yes, the whole bible. you don't read half a stephen king thriller and say you read it, certainly don't do it with a text of this weight.

go ahead and cry about the stupid christians if you are too lazy to read a book, 'cuz its big'. its funny.

pretty much everything you said is very opinionated... you think war and all is based on hatred... it isnt always.

christians should be full of love and kindness? 'should'? how do you make yourself become full of love and kindness just by being christian...

____________________________

"it sure might be wrong. i know i might be wrong.

religion is ALWAYS wrong. christ abolished it."

it 'might' be wrong? religion is 'always' wrong? make your mind up, you cant possibly know that all religion is wrong... and if you think you know that, why are you christian. Even jesus was a Jew, yet he "abolished" religion?
_______________________________

and your telling me to "go cry about all the stupid christians" where the fuck did that come from, you seem pretty hostile for someone so "full of love and kindness" and you hardly seem like you "dont care about things", you seem pretty unnecessarily defensive.

pretty much everything you said is very opinionated... you think war and all is based on hatred... it isnt always.

christians should be full of love and kindness? 'should'? how do you make yourself become full of love and kindness just by being christian...


you missed the point. the point is, my ideal, and what i believe the ideal of every good and decent human, is perfected in the image of christ. its found elsewhere, but i haven't found any example as pure.

being christian isn't about words and allegiances. the man that says, 'i am a christian', but is a horrible person, is less a christian then the atheist who gives to the poor, helps people, is kind, etc. "christianity" is about trying to be like christ. gandhi was more 'christian' then perhaps anyone but christ himself.

as for war, it may become at times a sad necessity, but rarely ever. certainly not a single war america has been in in the last hundred years or so. and while war may become at times the most moral thing, it's necessity is ALWAYS instigated by all the foul things that men do. hatred and cruelty is always at the heart of it.
____________________________

"it sure might be wrong. i know i might be wrong.

religion is ALWAYS wrong. christ abolished it."

it 'might' be wrong? religion is 'always' wrong? make your mind up, you cant possibly know that all religion is wrong... and if you think you know that, why are you christian. Even jesus was a Jew, yet he "abolished" religion?
_______________________________


and your telling me to "go cry about all the stupid christians" where the fuck did that come from, you seem pretty hostile for someone so "full of love and kindness" and you hardly seem like you "dont care about things", you seem pretty unnecessarily defensive.

im not hostile. thats out of context. i was merely pointing out the hypocrisy in calling anyone blind and stupid without reading the pertaining texts. its fucking retarded. and i don't care about most things, and the act of argument is in itself a conflict of minds, the purpose being to increase our knowledge. don't try to paint me as corrosive and antagonistic, i am not.

why are u so fuckin hostile towards people that dont believe what you believe

Care to look in a mirror? Passive aggression is as much hostility as exerted aggression.

And can I ask why you ended your post with the second highest name of the God of Abraham? ¬¬

the G, I will admit that I might be wrong and that there may not be a God, if you will admit that you might be wrong, there may be a God, and that he will punish you for your sins if you reject his son Jesus Christ.

Shit like this pisses me off. Jesus Christ will not punish me for my sins seeing as there is no heaven or hell, at least night the version that mainstream Christians have been taught to believe in.

Shit like this pisses me off. Jesus Christ will not punish me for my sins seeing as there is no heaven or hell, at least night the version that mainstream Christians have been taught to believe in.

rolloffle is either a troll or a idiot, because he doesn't seem to have read the bible. and you saying that there is no chance that there might be a heaven and hell is sort of funny, considering the topic of discussion.

rolloffle is either a troll or a idiot, because he doesn't seem to have read the bible. and you saying that there is no chance that there might be a heaven and hell is sort of funny, considering the topic of discussion.

He has to be a troll, TOTSE harbors some dumb people but not that retarded.

rolloffle is either a troll or a idiot, because he doesn't seem to have read the bible. and you saying that there is no chance that there might be a heaven and hell is sort of funny, considering the topic of discussion.

I never said heaven and hell don't exist. I just don't believe they do in the Christian sense. Heaven and hell are manmade concepts. Heaven is usually a place with only pleasure and no suffering, while hell is defined as full of suffering with no pleasure. To me, heaven and hell are subjective.

While I'm on the subject, the main problem I have with Christianity is their belief that a loving and just God would punish someone for eternity, for a lifetime of sin. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. A just God would not do that. A loving God would not do that. A loving and just God would not give us free will, knowing damn well what would happen. and then give us one chance to redeem ourselves. A god who does that doesn't deserve to be worshiped.

While I'm on the subject, the main problem I have with Christianity is their belief that a loving and just God would punish someone for eternity, for a lifetime of sin. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. A just God would not do that. A loving God would not do that. A loving and just God would not give us free will, knowing damn well what would happen. and then give us one chance to redeem ourselves. A god who does that doesn't deserve to be worshiped.

I fully agree with this.

I never said heaven and hell don't exist. I just don't believe they do in the Christian sense. Heaven and hell are manmade concepts. Heaven is usually a place with only pleasure and no suffering, while hell is defined as full of suffering with no pleasure. To me, heaven and hell are subjective.

While I'm on the subject, the main problem I have with Christianity is their belief that a loving and just God would punish someone for eternity, for a lifetime of sin. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. A just God would not do that. A loving God would not do that. A loving and just God would not give us free will, knowing damn well what would happen. and then give us one chance to redeem ourselves. A god who does that doesn't deserve to be worshiped.

CS Lewis touched on this. hell is never really mentioned in the bible; it is more of a catholic creation. and the catholics are evil.

the bible says that satan and his army will be sent to hell, but it says that humans that could not be in gods presence will simply be destroyed, as in oblivion, not eternal suffering. more like what most non religious people imagine death as, simple non existence.

CS Lewis explained it this way, that a soul that existed in gods presence, but was not a good soul, would be in interminable suffering. oblivion is a mercy for people who are not pure enough for gods presence, because that presence would torture them.

now obviously no one enters heaven perfect, but a soul whose tendency is towards goodness will go to heaven and be purified.

on another note, according to the bible, heaven hasn't even been created yet. it merely says when a christian is not present in the body, he is present with the lord. heaven is supposed to be created after this universe has run its course.

He has to be a troll, TOTSE harbors some dumb people but not that retarded.

im not sure, he has been doing for two and a half years that I know of. if he is a troll, he is the GOD OF TROLLS.

if he isn't, then i am going to reconsider eugenics.

CS Lewis touched on this. hell is never really mentioned in the bible; it is more of a catholic creation. and the catholics are evil.

You're right, hell isn't mentioned in the bible. I don't know if the Catholics thought it up, but it is definitely a manmade concept. What better way to keep the flock under control then to hold the only key to salvation? Catholics are no more evil then any other type of organized religion. Religion is about control, plain and simple.

the bible says that satan and his army will be sent to hell, but it says that humans that could not be in gods presence will simply be destroyed, as in oblivion, not eternal suffering. more like what most non religious people imagine death as, simple non existence.

Could you please provide me with the scriptures that back this up?

why are u so fuckin hostile towards people that dont believe what you believe

Care to look in a mirror? Passive aggression is as much hostility as exerted aggression.

And can I ask why you ended your post with the second highest name of the God of Abraham? ¬¬

i never even said what i believe, so im not hostile towards people that dont believe what i believe.

just cus i said "fuckin" doesnt mean im being hostile.

even if i am being hostile you wouldnt know either way... so what are you talkin about. and what do u mean by that thing you said about ending my post with the 2nd highest name of the god of abraham

You're right, hell isn't mentioned in the bible. I don't know if the Catholics thought it up, but it is definitely a manmade concept. What better way to keep the flock under control then to hold the only key to salvation? Catholics are no more evil then any other type of organized religion. Religion is about control, plain and simple.


their more evil simply as a matter of tallying up all the evil they have done.

religion is not inherently evil, or even about control. its just missing the point. but, something like the catholic church is just... sinister. the atrocities they have committed are beyond the scope of other religion's little offenses.


Could you please provide me with the scriptures that back this up?

we, its more of a LACK of scripture that pertains. in instances the bible speaks of sinners not being worth of heaven, it uses words that translate as, 'destruction' 'annihilation' 'obliteration'. if you take the bible at its word, god simply says that those that are unfit for proximity to himself will simply be erased - not sent to suffer for eternity. as for specific verses and such, i don't memorize those, just because it seems sort of showy, and my bible was recently destroyed, but if you flip through the latter half of the new testament, im sure you can find instances.

their more evil simply as a matter of tallying up all the evil they have done.

religion is not inherently evil, or even about control. its just missing the point. but, something like the catholic church is just... sinister. the atrocities they have committed are beyond the scope of other religion's little offenses.

Evil is subjective. And the so-called "Christian" churches have done a lot of bad things too. Religion in and of itself is inherently about control. Hence all the dogma.

we, its more of a LACK of scripture that pertains. in instances the bible speaks of sinners not being worth of heaven, it uses words that translate as, 'destruction' 'annihilation' 'obliteration'. if you take the bible at its word, god simply says that those that are unfit for proximity to himself will simply be erased - not sent to suffer for eternity. as for specific verses and such, i don't memorize those, just because it seems sort of showy, and my bible was recently destroyed, but if you flip through the latter half of the new testament, im sure you can find instances.

This is where I have to part ways with mainstream Christianity. For some reason, a loving and just God punishing someone for giving into temptation that he put there in the first place, just doesn't sit well with me. The God I worship knows I'm fallible, he knows I'm human, and he knows I'll make mistakes. And he gives me more than one chance, and more than one way, to atone for my sins. I don't buy into the whole "my way or the highway" dogma that modern religions spout out. There is more than one way to heaven, more than one way to enlightment.

there is a god and i am 100% sure of it in my own mind for he has actually answered me before

there is a god and i am 100% sure of it in my own mind for he has actually answered me before

You know, hearing voices is technically a symptom of a mental illness, right?

You know, hearing voices is technically a symptom of a mental illness, right?

What makes a mind healthy? Besides an apparently complete lack of any such 'symptoms' of mental illness, of course.

there is a god and i am 100% sure of it in my own mind for he has actually answered me before

The symptoms you describe are commonly brought on by schizophrenia. I highly suggest that you get yourself checked out before it worsens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_hallucinations

there is no evidence that the schizophrenics are mentally ill. they just might be more sensitive, more perceptive then the rest of us...

i didnt say i heard a voice
there are other ways such as actions that you can use to answer something

there is no evidence that the schizophrenics are mentally ill. they just might be more sensitive, more perceptive then the rest of us...

More perceptive?

If you're perceiving things that do not exist, then you are mentally ill.

Here is a definition of mental illness:

Psychiatric illness or diseases manifested by breakdowns in the adaptational process expressed primarily as abnormalities of thought, feeling, and behavior producing either distress or impairment of function.

i didnt say i heard a voice
there are other ways such as actions that you can use to answer something

O RLY?!

And how exactly did you experience this 'answer'?

More perceptive?

If you're perceiving things that do not exist, then you are mentally ill.

Here is a definition of mental illness:

O RLY?!

And how exactly did you experience this 'answer'?

there is no such thing as a mentally ill person. that term is merely used to describe someone different enough that they frighten people into imprisoning them.

you can't produce a shred of evidence that the people that schizophrenics see are NOT real, and they most of us are simply blind to them. you simply can't prove the 'crazies' are not RIGHT.

and now the border is merging even more rapidly. with the advent of terms such as, "sociopath" and "personality disorder" and "anti social behavior" mental 'illness' is becoming more and more a way of taking out the trash and standardizing the population. i myself have been classified by a psychologists and a LOT of counselors as the above terms, merely because i choose to live my own way.

the mind that society does not wish to confront will ALWAYS be deemed, 'ILL'.

If you're perceiving things that do not exist, then you are mentally ill.



And which mental illness would that be exactly?

you can't produce a shred of evidence that the people that schizophrenics see are NOT real, and they most of us are simply blind to them. you simply can't prove the 'crazies' are not RIGHT.

We certainly can, at least beyond a reasonable doubt. We can detect light and sound through equipment, for example. We can also determine if there is light and/or sound present by other ways it can affect the environment.

you simply can't prove the 'crazies' are not RIGHT.

Ok fine, I could care less if they're considered "crazy" or not.

The point is, if a person see's someone there, and 99 other people in the room do not see that same person there.

Then generally, they will be seen as a bit off.

Are you saying that you believe EVERY single thing that people tell you? If some random person told you that he was having regular conversations with god, you'd believe him?

And which mental illness would that be exactly?

I don't know. I'm not a psychologist.

I'm basing that off of the definition I found that describes all mental illness in general.

In the case of perceiving auditory or visual hallucinations, I suppose I would likely assume that it is a form of schizophrenia.

Ok fine, I could care less if they're considered "crazy" or not.

The point is, if a person see's someone there, and 99 other people in the room do not see that same person there.

Then generally, they will be seen as a bit off.

Are you saying that you believe EVERY single thing that people tell you? If some random person told you that he was having regular conversations with god, you'd believe him?


i don't know, why not? theres no way for me to tell, and life is boring enough without eliminating interesting things like that.

if some homeless man told me he was talking to god, i'd listen to him longer then i'd listen to a politician or a salesman.

i don't know, why not? theres no way for me to tell, and life is boring enough without eliminating interesting things like that.

if some homeless man told me he was talking to god, i'd listen to him longer then i'd listen to a politician or a salesman.

We're not talking about whether or not you'd find them interesting.

We're talking about whether or not you'd actually believe what they're saying.

I don't know. I'm not a psychologist.

So then maybe you shouldn't be saying they are mentally ill in the first place?

"You have a disease... I just don't know which one" is a pretty silly statement to make, don't you think?


In the case of perceiving auditory or visual hallucinations, I suppose I would likely assume that it is a form of schizophrenia.

Sorry, I'm afraid Schizophrenia requires a lot more than hallucinations.

We certainly can, at least beyond a reasonable doubt. We can detect light and sound through equipment, for example. We can also determine if there is light and/or sound present by other ways it can affect the environment.

you can not prove that they dont have extra, or heightened senses. it might be schizophrenics have a third eye that is not wholly of this world, and can detect things your equipment can not see.

either way, its the mans word against the psychologist. i will not consider the man a nutjob until i have evidence, and i already distrust the psychologist, so what am i to assume? these things ruins these peoples lives, its not like they are doing it for attention. so i assume they are telling the truth.

So then maybe you shouldn't be saying they are mentally ill in the first place?

"You have a disease... I just don't know which one" is a pretty silly statement to make, don't you think?

Sorry, I'm afraid Schizophrenia requires a lot more than hallucinations.

Alright, so then if someone was claiming that they were hallucinating, and they weren't on drugs.

What would be your first guess as to the cause?

you can not prove that they dont have extra, or heightened senses. it might be schizophrenics have a third eye that is not wholly of this world, and can detect things your equipment can not see.


Sure, and it might be little green aliens talking to him. It might also be that there is no past, and the universe was just created with all organisms in their present forms and memories implanted in our minds.

We can dream up silly scenarios all we want, that doesn't help your case; in fact, it hurts it. It shows quite vividly how your "doubt" isn't reasonable. Like I said, we can show they are hallucinating beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not to mention, following your absurd logic, you've just refuted yourself: you can not prove that I can not prove that they don't have those senses. According to you silly logic, you must assume that I can! :rolleyes:

Alright, so then if someone was claiming that they were hallucinating, and they weren't on drugs.

What would be your first guess as to the cause?

1. Do you know the poster in question wasn't on drugs? How? Did he say so?

2. If you could establish he wasn't on any drugs that could cause these symptoms, then there could be a multitude of different reasons for these symptoms. Mental illness isn't the only one, let alone schizophrenia in specific.

Hallucinations alone don't tell us it's schizophrenia, and since I'm not a Psychiatrist or Psychologist, I'd rather not pretend that I know and claim he's schizophrenic.

We certainly can, at least beyond a reasonable doubt. We can detect light and sound through equipment, for example. We can also determine if there is light and/or sound present by other ways it can affect the environment.

That is assuming science is right. There are abnormalities even to quantam mechanics and tons of things that just don't make sense.

Even in the remotest of chances (im talking about a % less then planck's constant) alterations on another dimensional plane superimposed could not be detected by our primitive instruments yet.
Assuming thats true (which is far-far-out there).

I actually never claimed he was schizophrenic.

I suggested that he seek professional help, as what he is exhibiting is a common symptom of schizophrenia.

That doesn't in any way imply that he definitely has schizophrenia. Just that he may.

I'd suggest that anyone exhibiting such odd symptoms get themselves checked out just in case.

Point being, I did not flat out label him as schizophrenic.

And in case you decide to really get pedantic here...

I will admit that I should have phrased my original statement as:

"I highly suggest that you get yourself checked out IN CASE it worsens."

Rather than:

"I highly suggest that you get yourself checked out BEFORE it worsens."

Well, while we're all making what each other said clear... I didn't say you said he was schizophrenic, I only said that I wouldn't call him that.

You did however, say that he had a mental illness, yet couldn't provide anything proving that...

That is assuming science is right.


A reasonable assumption to make.

"We certainly can [prove that he's hallucinating], at least beyond a reasonable doubt." - Me.

You did however, say that he had a mental illness, yet couldn't provide anything proving that...

My 'proof' was this definition I found of mental illness:

Psychiatric illness or diseases manifested by breakdowns in the adaptational process expressed primarily as abnormalities of thought, feeling, and behavior producing either distress or impairment of function.

I would personally consider hallucinations to be an abnormality of thought.

I would personally consider hallucinations to be an abnormality of thought.

Except the definition explicitly states:

"Psychiatric illness or diseases manifested by..."

Not only is it correctly pointing out how the diagnostic criteria is the responsibility of Psychiatry (or Psychology) and some dictionary (or whatever source you used), but it's also only mentioning potential symptoms of mental illness.

That definition does not say "if you have abnormalities of thought you have a mental illness". It says "If you have a mental illness, you can manifest ...abnormalities of thought...".

P => Q does not equal Q => P.

Except the definition explicitly states:

"Psychiatric illness or diseases manifested by..."

Not only is it correctly pointing out how the diagnostic criteria is the responsibility of Psychiatry (or Psychology) and some dictionary (or whatever source you used), but it's also only mentioning potential symptoms of mental illness.

That definition does not say "if you have abnormalities of thought you have a mental illness". It says "If you have a mental illness, you can manifest ...abnormalities of thought...".

P => Q does not equal Q => P.

Ok, fair enough.

I appreciate the mini logic lesson. :D

You know, hearing voices is technically a symptom of a mental illness, right?

what is the internal dialog but hearing voices...?

what is the internal dialog but hearing voices...?

I'm pretty sure that inner dialog is just supposed to be your own voice.

If you're hearing other external voices but there are no other people physically present, then I would maybe begin to worry that something isn't quite right.

Danzig,

wow man.

Not much to add but... serious applause.

Its a bit annoying to call yourself a christian, do something that Jesus wouldnt (like say 'Fuck you'), and then be called a hypocrite. I believe thats a given whenever you prescribe to a high moral code. We have a flawed nature. *shrug*

there is no such thing as a mentally ill person. that term is merely used to describe someone different enough that they frighten people into imprisoning them.

So, you're telling me someone who has bi-polar or schizophrenia is not mentally ill; they just frighten people so we label them as different to imprison them. You obviously have never seen or known someone who has a severe case of bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, or anti-social personality disorder


you can't produce a shred of evidence that the people that schizophrenics see are NOT real, and they most of us are simply blind to them. you simply can't prove the 'crazies' are not RIGHT.

And you can't produce a shred of evidence that what they see is real and that they are right. While we're on the subject of burden of proof, I would like to point out that you can't prove God exists either, just like I can't prove he doesn't.

and now the border is merging even more rapidly. with the advent of terms such as, "sociopath" and "personality disorder" and "anti social behavior" mental 'illness' is becoming more and more a way of taking out the trash and standardizing the population. i myself have been classified by a psychologists and a LOT of counselors as the above terms, merely because i choose to live my own way.

Have you ever seen or talked to someone with an anti-social personality disorder? They are trash. They have no morals, and they can't abide by the laws of a civilized society. And if you do have symptoms of an anti-social personality disorder, you're a danger to yourself and those around you.

he mind that society does not wish to confront will ALWAYS be deemed, 'ILL'.

??????

I took some LSD yesterday, and the giant badgers told me that they had met God. I took their word for it. They proceeded to eat me alive and vomit me out in another dimension where this thread magically made sense.

You know what, we are all assholes. Everyone who exists is an asshole. we will always be assholes as long as everyone is born into this world. But this really isn't the point.


You say that Christianity is "silly" and "close minded" and yet you only choose to believe in the tangible, unable to take a leap of faith. How is that not close minded?

You blame the corrupt officials that screw up Christianity. Yet everyone loves to talk about how great everything else is when in truth it is all corrupt. Everyone loves to ignore the corruptness of the entire world, but tries to focus one one corruptness, attribute it to the entire system, and damn the system. do you throw out your pc because you get 1 virus?

You are like a bird in a cage. Your cage is rationalization. If you could only break from having to be a shallow bird, then you could really get the chance to see the big picture that is the giant cage outside of your own.

You know what, we are all assholes. Everyone who exists is an asshole. we will always be assholes as long as everyone is born into this world. But this really isn't the point.


You say that Christianity is "silly" and "close minded" and yet you only choose to believe in the tangible, unable to take a leap of faith. How is that not close minded?

You blame the corrupt officials that screw up Christianity. Yet everyone loves to talk about how great everything else is when in truth it is all corrupt. Everyone loves to ignore the corruptness of the entire world, but tries to focus one one corruptness, attribute it to the entire system, and damn the system. do you throw out your pc because you get 1 virus?

You are like a bird in a cage. Your cage is rationalization. If you could only break from having to be a shallow bird, then you could really get the chance to see the big picture that is the giant cage outside of your own.


Pretty good Acolyte, pretty good.

You say that Christianity is "silly" and "close minded" and yet you only choose to believe in the tangible, unable to take a leap of faith. How is that not close minded?

....

You are like a bird in a cage. Your cage is rationalization. If you could only break from having to be a shallow bird, then you could really get the chance to see the big picture that is the giant cage outside of your own.

Sorry I don't have this supposed 'virtue' of gullibility.

Believing everything you hear/read is not a positive attribute to have.

Sorry I don't have this supposed 'virtue' of gullibility.

Believing everything you hear/read is not a positive attribute to have.

Gullibility is not what he was preaching. He was simply denouncing closemindedness.

However, when you keep an open yet critical perspective (please note, I did not say skeptical) you absorb wisdom and acquire understanding much more rapidly than you would when subscribing to either gullibility or closemindedness.

Being willing to understand and listen does not make you gullible. It is a cornerstone of the dialectic process.

Gullibility is not what he was preaching. He was simply denouncing closemindedness.

However, when you keep an open yet critical perspective (please note, I did not say skeptical) you absorb wisdom and acquire understanding much more rapidly than you would when subscribing to either gullibility or closemindedness.

Being willing to understand and listen does not make you gullible. It is a cornerstone of the dialectic process.

Most atheists are not close minded though. They're open-minded skeptics. That's why they even bother getting into debates with theists every chance they get.

Notice how every thread by an atheist is meant to challenge a certain theistic perspective. But you never see theists do this. They don't even bother to analyze their own perspectives.

Based on this, which group really has the closed mind?

Sorry I don't have this supposed 'virtue' of gullibility.

Believing everything you hear/read is not a positive attribute to have.

I didn't say to believe everything you hear. And there is no gullibility. That is relative to an opinion. Then again, what you say about not believing everything you hear is relative as well. Is it not just to say that maybe we shouldn't believe what we hear from you?

Most atheists are not close minded though. They're open-minded skeptics. That's why they even bother getting into debates with theists every chance they get.

Notice how every thread by an atheist is meant to challenge a certain theistic perspective. But you never see theists do this. They don't even bother to analyze their own perspectives.

Never see theists do this? Greek philosophers? Hello?
But maybe you are zoning this specifically to Christians. Fine that is acceptable to say that most Christians don't like to question anything or challenge anything. But you cannot say that ALL Christians are like this. I for one, question everything about my faith and encourage others to do so at the point where it becomes a heated argument.

Just how often does an atheist look at the plank in their eye and challenge their own perspective?

You say that Christianity is "silly" and "close minded" and yet you only choose to believe in the tangible, unable to take a leap of faith. How is that not close minded?

Because they are open to other ideas, just ideas that have tangible evidence. In other words, they are rational.

At no point in time does the definition of "open minded" require us to believe in silly, unsubstantiated things.

Is it not just to say that maybe we shouldn't believe what we hear from you?

I'm not preaching anything except for critical thinking.

And I hope you realize the irony involved with refusing to accept advice such as this...

Fine that is acceptable to say that most Christians don't like to question anything or challenge anything. But you cannot say that ALL Christians are like this.

LOL. YOU are the one who accused atheists of being birds in a cage... So if you wanna talk about mass generalizations, look DIRECTLY at your own posts.

Just how often does an atheist look at the plank in their eye and challenge their own perspective?

Always. That's why they're atheists!

Do you not understand what atheism means? It means (in relation to theism) a refusal to believe without evidence.

I'm not preaching anything except for critical thinking.
LOL. YOU are the one who accused atheists of being birds in a cage... So if you wanna talk about mass generalizations, look DIRECTLY at your own posts.
Do you not understand what atheism means? It means (in relation to theism) a refusal to believe without evidence.

Sometimes there is no evidence.

And I did say that we are all assholes. We are all birds in a cage, but there is such a thing as being in more cages than necessary. There are religious assholes who take things too far, just as there are non-religious assholes who base their beliefs on scientific method ONLY and then refuse to try to make an inference on behalf of the un-tangible.

I think any rational person could agree that being on any extreme is wrong, and this is the only thing that I advocate to you.

Because they are open to other ideas, just ideas that have tangible evidence. In other words, they are rational.

At no point in time does the definition of "open minded" require us to believe in silly, unsubstantiated things.

There is that "holier than thou" act in a person who doesn't believe that holiness exits. Wouldn't a person who is apparently more worldly and rational of society have a little more maturity in wit?

There is that "holier than thou" act in a person who doesn't believe that holiness exits. Wouldn't a person who is apparently more worldly and rational of society have a little more maturity in wit?

What "Holier than thou act"? You said something I think is wrong, thus I responded with why I think what you said is wrong.

Again: The definition of "open minded" at no point necessitates that we believe in things that are not substantiated. In other words, it doesn't say we must take a "leap of faith" in order to be open minded, thus we can easily answer your question (i.e. "How is that not close minded?"). It isn't close minded because "taking a leap of faith" isn't a requirement of open-mindedness.

Instead of responding to this, you respond with insults and irrelevant attacks against my personality.... and you dare talk about maturity?

What "Holier than thou act"? You said something I think is wrong, thus I responded with why I think what you said is wrong.

Again: The definition of "open minded" at no point necessitates that we believe in things that are not substantiated. In other words, it doesn't say we must take a "leap of faith" in order to be open minded, thus we can easily answer your question (i.e. "How is that not close minded?"). It isn't close minded because "taking a leap of faith" isn't a requirement of open-mindedness.

Instead of responding to this, you respond with insults and irrelevant attacks against my personality.... and you dare talk about maturity?

Yes for two reasons:
1- I am tired of always having to argue instead of a mutual understanding and it frustrates the shit out of me that 1 person who supposedly is told to love his neighbor can't have an agreement with someone who supposedly lives by a moral code of no hippocracy or corruption.

Your open mindedness theory holds no water. Its going in a loop because I say you are close minded not to attempt to accept the possibility of omnipotence or just simple faith. and you say that I am close minded because I apparently choose to accept the fact that we and I are all ignorant of the beginning of existence, and I choose to believe in a being of creation and purpose, which FOR ME allows me to probe and analyze my existence and that which cannot physically be searched.


well, whatever I guess its good to have people who choose not to do the same thing.

I think any rational person could agree that being on any extreme is wrong, and this is the only thing that I advocate to you.

Except that there are very few extreme atheists in comparison to extreme theists.

Theism involves dedication to one particular belief system. Atheism is naturally open to many.

A close minded atheist is about as rare as an open minded theist.

Your open mindedness theory holds no water.

No, it's pretty damn solid: it's based on the actual definition of those terms. Again: Does "open mindedness" require that we "take a leap if faith"? No, it does not. If it did, I could invent a whole religion that contradicts yours and then accuse you of being "close-minded" because you don't take the "leap of faith" required to believe in that religion I invented.

Sorry, but just because someone believes tangible evidence is important in the things they believe, does not mean they are "close minded" - or at least not in any meaningful way. They are open to new ideas, they just believe that the weight of these ideas should be proportional to the evidence there is.

... and you say that I am close minded because I apparently choose to accept the fact that we and I are all ignorant of the beginning of existence,


Actually, I don't say you're close minded. That's one thing that sets us apart: I don't claim to know what you are open to or not, hence I don't make accusations regarding whether you (or anyone else) are "closed minded" or "open minded".

You, on the other hand, apparently see no problem with attacking other people based on your pure speculation.

im not athiest btw

Except that there are very few extreme atheists in comparison to extreme theists.

Theism involves dedication to one particular belief system. Atheism is naturally open to many.

A close minded atheist is about as rare as an open minded theist.

Sorry, I have a problem with the way you seem to be presenting theism and atheism, both terms denote nothing more than a belief or lack of belief in God. Theism is just as open as atheism to whatever belief the individual feels like.

If you are talking about a particular denomination, why don't you just state it?

Also, close-minded atheists are rare? Maybe you should take a look around you.

Sorry, I have a problem with the way you seem to be presenting theism and atheism, both terms denote nothing more than a belief or lack of belief in God. Theism is just as open as atheism to whatever belief the individual feels like.

If you are talking about a particular denomination, why don't you just state it?

Also, close-minded atheists are rare? Maybe you should take a look around you.

You must have poor observation skills then...

And, by definition, most theists are of the Abrahamic religions. Therefor, most theists are close-minded.

These religions require faith in one particular belief. You cannot possibly try to tell me that that isn't close-minded.

You must have poor observation skills then...

And, by definition, most theists are of the Abrahamic religions. Therefor, most theists are close-minded.

These religions require faith in one particular belief. You cannot possibly try to tell me that that isn't close-minded.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!

You are not making logical sense.

For christ sake do you not see what you are doing wrong here? You are taking a label with a clear definition and then giving it different attributes for the sake of argument.

Because someone is a theist does not make them closeminded. No direct impact what.so.fucking.ever.


Because someone is an atheist that does not make them closeminded. No direct impact what.so.fucking.ever.

Because someone has a belief does not mean that they are a zealot.

Are we clear?

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!

You are not making logical sense.

For christ sake do you not see what you are doing wrong here? You are taking a label with a clear definition and then giving it different attributes for the sake of argument.

Because someone is a theist does not make them closeminded. No direct impact what.so.fucking.ever.


Because someone is an atheist that does not make them closeminded. No direct impact what.so.fucking.ever.

Because someone has a belief does not mean that they are a zealot.

Are we clear?

Alright, fine, theism doesn't necessarily automatically imply close-mindedness.

But that doesn't change the fact that about 99% of theists are close-minded.

Alright, fine, theism doesn't necessarily automatically imply close-mindedness.

But that doesn't change the fact that about 99% of theists are close-minded.

That doesn't sound like a very open minded statement.

How have you concluded that 99% of theists are so "close-minded"? That this is a fact?

I understand what you're trying to say, but you're being so ignorant. You should open your mind a little.

That doesn't sound like a very open minded statement.

How have you concluded that 99% of theists are so "close-minded"? That this is a fact?

I understand what you're trying to say, but you're being so ignorant. You should open your mind a little.

Refusing to listen to anything that doesn't coincide with your own beliefs is CLOSE MINDED.

And that defines practically all theists.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Refusing to listen to anything that doesn't coincide with your own beliefs is CLOSE MINDED.

And that defines practically all theists.

What is so hard to understand about that?

There's nothing hard to understand about that I just don't like it when the impression that theism=closemindedness is thrown around, in the same way I wouldn't like atheism to be presented as being atheism=immorality.

That and Truth-wielder summed it up.