Atheism? A mental disorder.

[bwinwright]

:D:cool:In my opinion, anyone who labels their self an atheist has a mental disorder because they are ignoring some pretty glaring evidence to the contrary.

After reading much of what Richard Dawkins has to say about atheism, and listening to James Randi talk about the subject, it's pretty clear that they both think organized religion really sucks and has been incredibly destructive for so long, that atheism is the only intelligent choice. I get it!

However, instead of calling yourself an atheist, call yourself a non-theist, or anti-organized religion, or something else. Why? Because there is still way too much confusion about the definition of God.

Both Dawkins and Randi believe in a God of sorts. They simply call it Nature or Evolution. Why don't they simply come out and say it! Instead, they seem to enjoy provoking and annoying the less well educated folks who go to church and believe in some form of human-like deity.

You see, many who claim to be atheists do have a mental disorder because they falsely assume or claim that such things as THE LAW OF ATTRACTION simply happened or occurred WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.

Since, in NATURE, we find that LIKE BEGETS LIKE in every form of life we have ever examined, can you honestly believe such a law was not the product of intelligence? The universe may be indifferent, but it had to be intelligent to establish such an awesome form of LAW & ORDER. To ignore this is to be mentally disturbed.

My point is that NATURE, EVOLUTION, or INTELLIGENCE would all be appropriate synonyms for God. Why not admit it? Why would any rational person persist in calling their self an atheist, unless they just wanted to be condescending, arrogant, and annoying?

Think of God, Nature, Intelligence, The Stuff, etc., like Einstein's Unified Field, a sea of super-sophisticated intelligent energy of which EVERYTHING consists. This is what science is discovering RIGHT NOW. Who's to say each of us, little individualized god-lets within this sea of INTELLIGENCE simply manufacture our own experience with our thoughts and feelings?

Wouldn't this mean we are all little GODS. Why fight it?

This is the LAW OF ATTRACTION at work too.

[technoextreme]

Since, in NATURE, we find that LIKE BEGETS LIKE in every form of life we have ever examined, can you honestly believe such a law was not the product of intelligence? The universe may be indifferent, but it had to be intelligent to establish such an awesome form of LAW & ORDER. To ignore this is to be mentally disturbed.
Didn't someone figure out that the process that DNA unravels is based upon chaos and disorder? Why are you starting the same topic over and over again.

[VulcanWay]

You're just defining god in whatever terms necessary to make a point, which is not helpful.

I'm wondering what intelligent thing created your god - surely by your definition of things it would take an intelligence to create such a being...

[paximperium]

Isn't funny that this joker ran away from the other thread and started another inane post? Sad isn't it?

[technoextreme]

Isn't funny that this joker ran away from the other thread and started another inane post? Sad isn't it?
Stupid??? I swear it took me five seconds to realize that these two threads are going to be merged.

[Terry]

Since, in NATURE, we find that LIKE BEGETS LIKE in every form of life we have ever examined, can you honestly believe such a law was not the product of intelligence?

Yes, absolutely. Darwin explained how, about 150 years ago.

[technoextreme]

Awwww for *(#&$(*#$s sake. I answered his stupid question about the Rolex in the other thread without even realizing it.

[Tortan]

This "glaring evidence" is non existent. Nature is not god. That implies that it knows precisely what it is doing and is guided in some divine and intelligent way, which it isn't.

The original post in this thread fails miserably on many levels. Better luck next time?

[Mashuna]

:D:cool:In my opinion, anyone who labels their self an atheist has a mental disorder because they are ignoring some pretty glaring evidence to the contrary.

After reading much of what Richard Dawkins has to say about atheism, and listening to James Randi talk about the subject, it's pretty clear that they both think organized religion really sucks and has been incredibly destructive for so long, that atheism is the only intelligent choice. I get it!

Maybe as well as reading and listening, you could try comprehension.

[paximperium]

After reading much of what Richard Dawkins has to say about atheism, and listening to James Randi talk about the subject, it's pretty clear that they both think organized religion really sucks and has been incredibly destructive for so long, that atheism is the only intelligent choice. I get it!
I think you're a liar who has never read anything by Dawkins or Randi.


However, instead of calling yourself an atheist, call yourself a non-theist, or anti-organized religion, or something else. Why? Because there is still way too much confusion about the definition of God.
Yawn...people can call themselves whatever they want. I choose to call myself an Agnostic Atheist.


Both Dawkins and Randi believe in a God of sorts. They simply call it Nature or Evolution. Why don't they simply come out and say it! Instead, they seem to enjoy provoking and annoying the less well educated folks who go to church and believe in some form of human-like deity.
yawn...dishonesty at its purest form. Attempting to use a useless definition to label people into Strawmen.


You see, many who claim to be atheists do have a mental disorder because they falsely assume or claim that such things as THE LAW OF ATTRACTION simply happened or occurred WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.
Do you even understand what you're talking about?


Since, in NATURE, we find that LIKE BEGETS LIKE in every form of life we have ever examined, can you honestly believe such a law was not the product of intelligence? The universe may be indifferent, but it had to be intelligent to establish such an awesome form of LAW & ORDER. To ignore this is to be mentally disturbed.
Yup...you have no idea what you're talking about. Evolution and physics explains it very well indeed.


My point is that NATURE, EVOLUTION, or INTELLIGENCE would all be appropriate synonyms for God. Why not admit it? Why would any rational person persist in calling their self an atheist, unless they just wanted to be condescending, arrogant, and annoying?
Sure it can be. I believe in Nature therefore I must be a theist. What a useless label, but you call us whatever makes you happy.


Think of God, Nature, Intelligence, The Stuff, etc., like Einstein's Unified Field, a sea of super-sophisticated intelligent energy of which EVERYTHING consists. This is what science is discovering RIGHT NOW. Who's to say each of us, little individualized god-lets within this sea of INTELLIGENCE simply manufacture our own experience with our thoughts and feelings?
More useless drivel. Thanks for redefining god into a completely useless concept to make YOU feel better. You have such amazing powers...more power than god apparently.


Wouldn't this mean we are all little GODS. Why fight it?

This is the LAW OF ATTRACTION at work too.
Stupidest post I've read all month. Thanks for the laugh.

[Diamond]

:D:cool:In my opinion, anyone who labels their self an atheist has a mental disorder because they are ignoring some pretty glaring evidence to the contrary.



I don't want your opinion. I want testable facts in a repeatable experiment.

Opinions are like arseholes. Everybody has one.

[KingMerv00]

"God" is most commonly defined as some kind of conscious entity. Your definition simply defines order as "God". Your definition is useless.

[Loss Leader]

The universe may be indifferent, but it had to be intelligent to establish such an awesome form of LAW & ORDER.


The intelligence behind Law and Order is Dick Wolf.

[PixyMisa]

I believe in God too. (Where I define "believe" as "like" and "God" as "chocolate".) I try to worship Him every day. (Were I define "worship" as "eat" and "Him" as "probably a couple of ounces".)

[Safe-Keeper]

:biggrin::cool:In my opinion, anyone who labels their self an atheist has a mental disorder because they are ignoring some pretty glaring evidence to the contrary.There's glaring evidence I don't have a mental disorder.
I ignore this evidence.
Therefore, I have a mental disorder.

What?

OP, I appreciate that you've come here, but please be a little more open-minded.

Since, in NATURE, we find that LIKE BEGETS LIKE in every form of life we have ever examined, can you honestly believe such a law was not the product of intelligence?Where did the laws come from that allowed this intelligence to create the laws of the universe?

"God" is most commonly defined as some kind of conscious entity. Your definition simply defines order as "God". Your definition is useless.Exactly. If you're trying to prove God exists, prove God exists. Defining Him as something completely different and then using the existence of that definition to prove God exists is a fallacy.

[Beerina]

:D:cool:In my opinion, anyone who labels their self an atheist has a mental disorder because they are ignoring some pretty glaring evidence to the contrary.

Ok, I'm ready to be astounded. Glare away!


After reading much of what Richard Dawkins has to say about atheism, and listening to James Randi talk about the subject, it's pretty clear that they both think organized religion really sucks and has been incredibly destructive for so long, that atheism is the only intelligent choice. I get it!

You said that in the other thread. Yes, a quick look at the history of all religion around the world shows they're incredibly destructive.

As Dawkins says, "We're all athiests about Zeus, Odin, Thor the Thunder God, and so on. Some of us just go one god further."

However, instead of calling yourself an atheist, call yourself a non-theist, or anti-organized religion, or something else. Why? Because there is still way too much confusion about the definition of God.

I am an athiest because I claim nothing supernatural exists, whatsoever.

And even if it did, it would just be a world with its own rules of physics.

Both Dawkins and Randi believe in a God of sorts. They simply call it Nature or Evolution. Why don't they simply come out and say it! Instead, they seem to enjoy provoking and annoying the less well educated folks who go to church and believe in some form of human-like deity.

Evolution or Nature are not a god in the traditional sense. But even religion refers poetically to other "gods" like gold, power, and so on.

I think it's disingenous to pretend to conflate poetic descriptions of something like Nature being a god with actual supernatural claims of a real, supernatural god.

You see, many who claim to be atheists do have a mental disorder because they falsely assume or claim that such things as THE LAW OF ATTRACTION simply happened or occurred WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.

What's the "LAW OF ATTRACTION"? Is it that thing talking heads on Oprah are hawking, buy my book, buy my book?

Since, in NATURE, we find that LIKE BEGETS LIKE in every form of life we have ever examined, can you honestly believe such a law was not the product of intelligence?

Correct. It is chemistry. The mechanics of reproduction, including the swapping of DNA sections for the purpose of exploring the evolutionary gradient descent space, are being understood more and more each day.


The universe may be indifferent, but it had to be intelligent to establish such an awesome form of LAW & ORDER. To ignore this is to be mentally disturbed.

Computer programs have demonstrated amply for several decades that the mathematical foundation of evolution is sound.

Evolution
Explanatory Power: Awesome
Predictive Power: Awesome
Mathematical Foundation: Solid and Real

Please point to the error where this is "mentally disturbed".


Religion/ID/Creationism
Explanatory Power: Poor, and Lessening With More Scientific Discoveries*
Predictive Power: Fail**
Mathematical Foundation: Fail***





* We do not live in a hollowed out pocket of land with a firm sky above, holding back the waters of chaos. The sun goes around the Earth. The moon reflects the sun, not generating its own light. A spinal column is a miserable design for an upright organism; longbones should be used instead. If a tailbone is needed, it should be a solid bone process, not a bunch of fused, degenerate vertebra. "Junk", disabled DNA should not be present in organisms, which occasionally gets re-enabled, leading to partial tails on humans, partial legs on whales, tons of body hair on humans, partial legs on snakes, et al., ad nauseum.

** ID predicts certain structures that are "irreducibly complex", i.e. could not have evolved since there are no simpler forms that they could have evolved from which were functional and useful for something else. But the list of such things keeps getting smaller as science finds out how these evolved. The rotating bacterial flagellum was claimed to be one such structure. But recent discoveries found a poison injector that was extremely similar. "Ok," says ID. "Well, what about this other one? It still hasen't been explained! Therefore ID is correct!"

At what point would ID proponents accept defeat? Only when every last possible irriducibly complex structure has been explained? This is poor science.

*** ID/Creationism's foundation is that there are certain things too complex to have evolved, and that therefore they must have been designed by an intelligent mind. Ironically, the human mind, the key separator between Man and Beast, is one of these things. But if a mind must be designed, then the designer's mind must have been designed, too, by yet another mind. And so on, indefinitely. Hence, whatever else, ID/Creationism does not support the standard religious concept of God.

[fuelair]

:D:cool:In my opinion, anyone who labels their self an atheist has a mental disorder because they are ignoring some pretty glaring evidence to the contrary.

After reading much of what Richard Dawkins has to say about atheism, and listening to James Randi talk about the subject, it's pretty clear that they both think organized religion really sucks and has been incredibly destructive for so long, that atheism is the only intelligent choice. I get it!

However, instead of calling yourself an atheist, call yourself a non-theist, or anti-organized religion, or something else. Why? Because there is still way too much confusion about the definition of God.

Both Dawkins and Randi believe in a God of sorts. They simply call it Nature or Evolution. Why don't they simply come out and say it! Instead, they seem to enjoy provoking and annoying the less well educated folks who go to church and believe in some form of human-like deity.

You see, many who claim to be atheists do have a mental disorder because they falsely assume or claim that such things as THE LAW OF ATTRACTION simply happened or occurred WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.

Since, in NATURE, we find that LIKE BEGETS LIKE in every form of life we have ever examined, can you honestly believe such a law was not the product of intelligence? The universe may be indifferent, but it had to be intelligent to establish such an awesome form of LAW & ORDER. To ignore this is to be mentally disturbed.

My point is that NATURE, EVOLUTION, or INTELLIGENCE would all be appropriate synonyms for God. Why not admit it? Why would any rational person persist in calling their self an atheist, unless they just wanted to be condescending, arrogant, and annoying?

Think of God, Nature, Intelligence, The Stuff, etc., like Einstein's Unified Field, a sea of super-sophisticated intelligent energy of which EVERYTHING consists. This is what science is discovering RIGHT NOW. Who's to say each of us, little individualized god-lets within this sea of INTELLIGENCE simply manufacture our own experience with our thoughts and feelings?

Wouldn't this mean we are all little GODS. Why fight it?

This is the LAW OF ATTRACTION at work too.
Opening multiple posts essentially trolling on the same topic has gotten others suspended/banned. It will not trouble me if that happens to you. I am an atheist, there is no proof of dog in any way shape or form and much of your bibble is stolen from older mythology. Have a nice day.:D

[CurtC]

You see, many who claim to be atheists do have a mental disorder because they falsely assume or claim that such things as THE LAW OF ATTRACTION simply happened or occurred WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.

You just watched The Secret, didn't you?

[lumos]

:D:cool: Why would any rational person persist in calling their self an atheist, unless they just wanted to be condescending, arrogant, and annoying?


The only condescention, arrogance, and annoyance I notice comes from you and people like you.

Thanks for a post filled with it.

[phantomb]

You just watched The Secret, didn't you?


https://www.hado.net/index.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto

I've always liked the water crystal guy better. I think it was in one of my Biology classes that we had to sit through his whole documentary and take note of all the problems with his methods and conclusions. My favorite scene was one about 5 minutes in where the nut job Doctor of Alternative Medicine states that not only does he not use a control group in his experiments, he himself literally hand-picks which crystals to use for his presentations because more than 50% of his test samples fail. He then goes on to share the fact that his organization has no working hypothesis for its claimed results. :confused:

Sorry to go off topic, but I think we can all agree that the stupid water guy is slightly more entertaining than the stupid OP.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Thank God I'm not sane.

[Cainkane1]

Why didn't you keep this in the original thread?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Why didn't you keep this in the original thread?
Sometimes, a poster comes along who has such piercing intellect and unique insights into the universe and mankind's place within it that a single thread just will not suffice to hold it all, and other threads must be started to spread this wisdom far and wide.

In this case, though, I have no idea.

[Twiler]

:D:cool:In my opinion, anyone who labels their self an atheist has a mental disorder because they are ignoring some pretty glaring evidence to the contrary.

[snip]



I am an atheist.

Do you think I have a mental disorder?

[Mashuna]

Sometimes, a poster comes along who has such piercing intellect and unique insights into the universe and mankind's place within it that a single thread just will not suffice to hold it all, and other threads must be started to spread this wisdom far and wide.

In this case, though, I have no idea.

You've been reading the Pixie of key threads again, haven't you.

[Hokulele]

I am an atheist.

Do you think I have a mental disorder?


Well, you are trying to have a rational conversation with the OP... ;)

[Blackadder]

I believe in God too. (Where I define "believe" as "like" and "God" as "chocolate".) I try to worship Him every day. (Were I define "worship" as "eat" and "Him" as "probably a couple of ounces".)

a couple of ounces? My God How Big are You? :D

[Ron_Tomkins]

This is the LAW OF ATTRACTION at work woo.

Fixed it for ya

[RoboTimbo]

I believe in God too. (Where I define "believe" as "like" and "God" as "chocolate".) I try to worship Him every day. (Were I define "worship" as "eat" and "Him" as "probably a couple of ounces".)

I prefer dark God, from Hershey's. And God covered cherries. I worship that by the boxful.

[Hokulele]

I prefer dark God, from Hershey's. And God covered cherries. I worship that by the boxful.


A nice cup of hot God with a splash of peppermint schnapps is divine.

[Shalamar]

In my opinion, anyone who posts anything like the OP, has a mental disorder..

[Arthur Denton]

This is the LAW OF ATTRACTION at work too.

Right. I am attracting a Lotus for myself ever since I was born. No go.

[Elizabeth I]

A nice cup of hot God with a splash of peppermint schnapps is divine.

YOU HERETIC, not peppermint schnapps - amaretto!

[RoboTimbo]

A nice cup of hot God with a splash of peppermint schnapps is divine.

Is it better to hijack this thread or start a new one "What kind of God do you like to eat?".

[bwinwright]

"God" is most commonly defined as some kind of conscious entity. Your definition simply defines order as "God". Your definition is useless.

:cool: KingMerv00, Doesn't ORDER imply intelligent direction?

I have always believed this, yet you say it's useless? Wow!

Plus if all "IS" one, then wouldn't that make order and intelligence or consciousness one in the same? Yeah, baby!

[Tormac]

I think anyone who seriously sees a significant difference between "atheist" and "non-theist" is pedantic enough that they may be viewed as having a mental disorder.

(Sorry bwinwright, I couldn't resist).

But seriously bwinwright, you seem to feel that you have the single best definition of what "GOD" is. Speaking for myself, I would suggest that you first convince the rest of you fellow theists that your definition is the one true definition, and then come at the non-theists as a unified front.

You’re not the first person to present a notion of Pantheism. It is not really new or exciting.

[bwinwright]

Is it better to hijack this thread or start a new one "What kind of God do you like to eat?".

:) RoboTimbo, Catherine Zeta Jones, Elizabeth Hurley, Nicole Kidman would all be perfectly fine with me.

[wolfgirl]

:cool: KingMerv00, Doesn't ORDER imply intelligent direction?

I have always believed this, yet you say it's useless? Wow!The fact that you have always believed order implies intelligent direction does not make it true.

Who designed your designer?

[wolfgirl]

My point is that NATURE, EVOLUTION, or INTELLIGENCE would all be appropriate synonyms for God.Even if what you say is true, that we atheists worship nature, that still doesn't make nature our god. We don't ascribe any sort of supernatural abilities to it (by definition!), nor do we expect it to fulfill our wishes if we ask it to nicely. We don't believe it fathered a child immaculately, not do we believe that that child rose from the dead. We don't believe it makes snakes talk.

[Shalamar]

The fact that you have always believed order implies intelligent direction does not make it true.

Who designed your designer?

The intelligent designer designer of course! Before him it was the Intelligent Designer Designer Designer. Before THAT.. Was Bob. But we don't talk about Bob.

[Personal Grudge]

The intelligent designer designer of course! Before him it was the Intelligent Designer Designer Designer. Before THAT.. Was Bob. But we don't talk about Bob.

It seems clear to me that Bob has a mental disorder ;)

[Jeff Corey]

...I have always believed this, yet you say it's useless? Wow!...
Get used to it. Just about everything you've said so here far is.

[Foster Zygote]

:D:cool:In my opinion, anyone who labels their self an atheist has a mental disorder because they are ignoring some pretty glaring evidence to the contrary.
Like what?

After reading much of what Richard Dawkins has to say about atheism, and listening to James Randi talk about the subject, it's pretty clear that they both think organized religion really sucks and has been incredibly destructive for so long, that atheism is the only intelligent choice. I get it!
Congratulations!

However, instead of calling yourself an atheist, call yourself a non-theist, or anti-organized religion, or something else. Why? Because there is still way too much confusion about the definition of God.
Theists certainly seem to have a hard time agreeing on a specific definition. However, most define gods as conscious, intelligent beings with supernatural powers.

Both Dawkins and Randi believe in a God of sorts. They simply call it Nature or Evolution. Why don't they simply come out and say it! Instead, they seem to enjoy provoking and annoying the less well educated folks who go to church and believe in some form of human-like deity.
Right... And if I call my red tabby "God" then God is a cat. Even if, like Spinoza or Einstein, one uses the word "god" in poetic reference to nature, this is not the same thing as believing in a supernatural intelligence with the power to suspend the laws of nature. But then, I've never known Dawkins or Randi to make any such use of the word "god".

You see, many who claim to be atheists do have a mental disorder because they falsely assume or claim that such things as THE LAW OF ATTRACTION simply happened or occurred WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.
Define "Law of Attraction". Is this something to do with The Secret?

Since, in NATURE, we find that LIKE BEGETS LIKE in every form of life we have ever examined, can you honestly believe such a law was not the product of intelligence?
What Terry said.

The universe may be indifferent, but it had to be intelligent to establish such an awesome form of LAW & ORDER.
No, it didn't have to be. We have learned that simple atoms and forces can interact in a completely natural way to produce more complex combinations. The wonder of life is that matter reached a point where the complex combinations produced copies of themselves. Some of these copies have minor changes within the combinations of matter. Some of these changes lead to the combinations of matter being able to produce copies of themselves with greater success. At no point in any of this is it necessary to posit the influence of an intelligent, directive force. Science has shown that complexity happens from the bottom up, not the top down.

To ignore this is to be mentally disturbed.

My point is that NATURE, EVOLUTION, or INTELLIGENCE would all be appropriate synonyms for God. Why not admit it? Why would any rational person persist in calling their self an atheist, unless they just wanted to be condescending, arrogant, and annoying?
This is simply histrionic thrashing of a straw-man. You obviously feel the need to convince yourself that those who disagree with you are mentally deficient. I suspect it has more to do with your failure to defend your claims than you are willing to admit. What could be more more condescending, arrogant and annoying than suggesting that those who point out flaws in your arguments are "mentally disturbed".

Think of God, Nature, Intelligence, The Stuff, etc., like Einstein's Unified Field, a sea of super-sophisticated intelligent energy of which EVERYTHING consists. This is what science is discovering RIGHT NOW. Who's to say each of us, little individualized god-lets within this sea of INTELLIGENCE simply manufacture our own experience with our thoughts and feelings?
Oh dear, you have been reading The Secret, yes?

Wouldn't this mean we are all little GODS. Why fight it?
And my cat is an even littler god. I'm reminded of a line from The Incredibles: "When everybody's super, nobody will be." What does it matter if we play semantic games? We can all agree to call ourselves "gods", but that really won't change anything, will it?

[CurtC]

The intelligent designer designer of course!

But wait - wouldn't this intelligent designer designer have to be intelligent? That would make it the intelligent intelligent designer designer. Designed, of course, by the intelligent intelligent intelligent designer designer designer.

[Shalamar]

But wait - wouldn't this intelligent designer designer have to be intelligent? That would make it the intelligent intelligent designer designer. Designed, of course, by the intelligent intelligent intelligent designer designer designer.


Hmm.. No.. I think that creating an Intelligent designer would be a profoundly stupid thing to do. So maybe it would be the Stupid Intelligent Designer Designer. Or just Bob.

[Lrrr]

Oh goody. Another drive by trolling.

[jenski]

Doesn't ORDER imply intelligent direction?


Only to you my dear, only to you.

[Pardalis]

My point is that NATURE, EVOLUTION, or INTELLIGENCE would all be appropriate synonyms for God. Why not admit it?

Can I call my penis god then? It's a part of nature, it's an integral part of human evolution, and mine's pretty damn intelligent, it often thinks for me.

[cannotthinkofaname]

:D:cool:In my opinion, anyone who labels their self an atheist has a mental disorder because they are ignoring some pretty glaring evidence to the contrary.

After reading much of what Richard Dawkins has to say about atheism, and listening to James Randi talk about the subject, it's pretty clear that they both think organized religion really sucks and has been incredibly destructive for so long, that atheism is the only intelligent choice. I get it!

However, instead of calling yourself an atheist, call yourself a non-theist, or anti-organized religion, or something else. Why? Because there is still way too much confusion about the definition of God.

Both Dawkins and Randi believe in a God of sorts. They simply call it Nature or Evolution. Why don't they simply come out and say it! Instead, they seem to enjoy provoking and annoying the less well educated folks who go to church and believe in some form of human-like deity.

You see, many who claim to be atheists do have a mental disorder because they falsely assume or claim that such things as THE LAW OF ATTRACTION simply happened or occurred WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.

Since, in NATURE, we find that LIKE BEGETS LIKE in every form of life we have ever examined, can you honestly believe such a law was not the product of intelligence? The universe may be indifferent, but it had to be intelligent to establish such an awesome form of LAW & ORDER. To ignore this is to be mentally disturbed.

My point is that NATURE, EVOLUTION, or INTELLIGENCE would all be appropriate synonyms for God. Why not admit it? Why would any rational person persist in calling their self an atheist, unless they just wanted to be condescending, arrogant, and annoying?

Think of God, Nature, Intelligence, The Stuff, etc., like Einstein's Unified Field, a sea of super-sophisticated intelligent energy of which EVERYTHING consists. This is what science is discovering RIGHT NOW. Who's to say each of us, little individualized god-lets within this sea of INTELLIGENCE simply manufacture our own experience with our thoughts and feelings?

Wouldn't this mean we are all little GODS. Why fight it?

This is the LAW OF ATTRACTION at work too.

As a fellow Christian a feel really embarrased because of the piss poor argument you put forward, I must ask what are you trying to say is absolute proof apart from our religion mate? furthermore it sounds like your trying to preach to these people far too much mate.

[Silentknight]

:D:cool:In my opinion, anyone who labels their self an atheist has a mental disorder because they are ignoring some pretty glaring evidence to the contrary. (snip) blah, blah, blah, Teh Secret and OMGCAPSLOCK FOR EMPHASIS!

Since you ignored my reponse in the previous topic, I'll ask the same question here. Let's pretend for the sake of argument that the universe was designed. What's your point?

[Nyarlathotep]

:cool: KingMerv00, Doesn't ORDER imply intelligent direction?

I have always believed this, yet you say it's useless? Wow!

I have always (until I found out otherwise in the last couple of years) beleived that that the song You're So Vain contained a line about "Clowns in my Coffee". The fact that I have always thought that doesn't make me right.

Plus if all "IS" one, then wouldn't that make order and intelligence or consciousness one in the same? Yeah, baby!

And if dog doo-doo IS actually gold, then I can scape a million dollars off the ground in my back yard. Yeah, baby!

[Personal Grudge]

Since you ignored my reponse in the previous topic, I'll ask the same question here. Let's pretend for the sake of argument that the universe was designed. What's your point?

I would assume that his point is... we should abandon the scientific method (which has, up to this point, been the best method of gaining knowledge) in favor of just accepting what seems to be common sense.

It seems common sense to me that cancer is caused by the evil pink unicorns rebelling against the righteous blue unicorns up in the ether... so, there is no reason to research "cures" or "treatments" for cancer. If we can acknowledge these unicorns and find a way to cause a peace... cancer is over!

I get it!

How can you ignorant atheists think any different?!!! ;)

[devnull]

:cool: KingMerv00, Doesn't ORDER imply intelligent direction?


No.

[Foster Zygote]

Can I call my penis god then? It's a part of nature, it's an integral part of human evolution, and mine's pretty damn intelligent, it often thinks for me.

We just might have a new forum god.

[SimonD]

Better luck next time?

Please don't encourge him. Two threads of utter nonesense is enough

[Personal Grudge]

Please don't encourge him. Two threads of utter nonesense is enough

Ah, but sometimes... when nonsense is spread, it makes it so much more apparent that science and skeptical thought are absolutely necessary. Irrationality helps keep the blade of skeptism sharp :)

[cannotthinkofaname]

I would assume that his point is... we should abandon the scientific method (which has, up to this point, been the best method of gaining knowledge) in favor of just accepting what seems to be common sense.

It seems common sense to me that cancer is caused by the evil pink unicorns rebelling against the righteous blue unicorns up in the ether... so, there is no reason to research "cures" or "treatments" for cancer. If we can acknowledge these unicorns and find a way to cause a peace... cancer is over!

I get it!

How can you ignorant atheists think any different?!!! ;)

What you said reminds me of something a mate said to me recently, "Common sense is not that common"

[Terry]

Doesn't ORDER imply intelligent direction?

Not so far as I can see. Can you explain why you think it does?

[schlitt]

You are transparently dishonest bwinwright.

You said this:



After reading much of what Richard Dawkins has to say about atheism, and listening to James Randi talk about the subject, it's pretty clear that they both think organized religion really sucks and has been incredibly destructive for so long, that atheism is the only intelligent choice. I get it!



Followed by this:



Both Dawkins and Randi believe in a God of sorts. They simply call it Nature or Evolution.



Dawkins expounds upon this very issue in the first chapter of "the god delusion", which you clearly have not read.

Furthermore, you do not as you state you do; - "get it". Everything you ramble about is a misrepresentation/miscomprehension and suffers from a supreme lack of logic.

[Personal Grudge]

Furthermore, you do not as you state you do; - "get it". Everything you ramble about is a misrepresentation/miscomprehension and suffers from a supreme lack of logic.

I get it!

[Elizabeth I]

I have always (until I found out otherwise in the last couple of years) beleived that that the song You're So Vain contained a line about "Clowns in my Coffee". The fact that I have always thought that doesn't make me right.

I think I like that better than the so-called correct version.

[schlitt]

I get it!

:)

[Silentknight]

Can I call my penis god then? It's a part of nature, it's an integral part of human evolution, and mine's pretty damn intelligent, it often thinks for me.

We just might have a new forum god.

Just great. As if we didn't have enough people going around bragging that their god is bigger than everyone else's god.

[Personal Grudge]

Just great. As if we didn't have enough people going around bragging that their god is bigger than everyone else's god.

But... but... I've always been told that the size of my god didn't matter.

It was all a pack of lies, wasn't it?

[Hokulele]

Just great. As if we didn't have enough people going around bragging that their god is bigger than everyone else's god.


And some of us will have god, only when we want god. ;)

[UnrepentantSinner]

:words:

Interesting how an OP that uses the word intelligence so frequently exhibits so little of it.

[Hokulele]

Interesting how an OP that uses the word intelligence so frequently exhibits so little of it.


Ditto for order.

[Personal Grudge]

Interesting how an OP that uses the word intelligence so frequently exhibits so little of it.

In an intellgent society, with people of intelligence who possess geniune intellgence, the intelligent people... thereby possessing the quality of intelligence... would intelligently determine that an intelligent designer must have intelligently designed such an intelligently designed universe. I intelligently and humbly await the intelligent compliments to my intelligence.

I get it!

[paximperium]

Just great. As if we didn't have enough people going around bragging that their god is bigger than everyone else's god.

God: It doesn't matter how big yours is; it's how you use it.

[Robin]

My point is that NATURE, EVOLUTION, or INTELLIGENCE would all be appropriate synonyms for God. Why not admit it? Why would any rational person persist in calling their self an atheist, unless they just wanted to be condescending, arrogant, and annoying?
In other words you are an atheist, but you don't like the terminology. Yes?

By the way, when will you get round to explaining why you think intelligence does not require order?

[skeptigirl]

Didn't someone figure out that the process that DNA unravels is based upon chaos and disorder? Why are you starting the same topic over and over again.No kidding. It's tiresome.

[Kopji]

Another desperate diatribe against atheists and promotion of the stigmatization of the mentally ill.

If god is not a personal, biblical kind of god that responds to prayer and influences the universe in a meaningful way - is such a god really worth all this trouble? What is the virtue in defending god as an idea, but denying that this god has any kind of power?

There is no god because if there was one he'd be busy smiting people who believe he is another name for nature or the universe.

[slingblade]

However, instead of calling yourself an atheist, call yourself a non-theist, or anti-organized religion, or something else.

Know what?


You don't get to tell me what to do! Isn't that just the coolest thing?

You don't even get to make suggestions! What I call myself isn't your problem! I can wear any old label I choose, and you just get to deal and get on with your own life! It's a stunning concept! I hope you adopt it!



...not "their selves." "Themselves," all one word.

[Travis]

Holy ****! :eek: I worship evolution?

I sure am glad someone pointed this out since here I had been thinking that it was merely the explanation with the most evidence to substantiate it. That could have been embarrassing.

Now if you'll excuse me I need to go pray to Gravity and sacrifice a goat to Electromagnetism.

[six7s]

Opening multiple posts essentially trolling on the same topic has gotten others suspended/banned. It will not trouble me if that happens to you. I am an atheist, there is no proof of dog in any way shape or form and much of your bibble is stolen from older mythology. Have a nice day.:DI couldn't have put it better if I tried... so I won't...

Instead: ditto :)

[Furi]

Originally Posted by fuelair
Opening multiple posts essentially trolling on the same topic has gotten others suspended/banned. It will not trouble me if that happens to you. I am an atheist, there is no proof of dog in any way shape or form and much of your bibble is stolen from older mythology. Have a nice day.:biggrin:

I couldn't have put it better if I tried... so I won't...

Instead: ditto :)

I was going to respond but I agree

Instead: Tritto
(I madeied a nude word not bad for a mental disordorist)

[moopet]

Interesting how an OP that uses the word intelligence so frequently exhibits so little of it.

It's ok, he makes up for it in CAPS.

[Diamond]

Holy ****! :eek: I worship evolution?

I sure am glad someone pointed this out since here I had been thinking that it was merely the explanation with the most evidence to substantiate it. That could have been embarrassing.

Now if you'll excuse me I need to go pray to Gravity and sacrifice a goat to Electromagnetism.

That made me laugh. Thanks Travis!

As a fellow Christian a feel really embarrased because of the piss poor argument you put forward, I must ask what are you trying to say is absolute proof apart from our religion mate? furthermore it sounds like your trying to preach to these people far too much mate.

I would like to emphasise on behalf of the atheists here, that we do not condemn all Christians such as yourself for the pisspoor arguments of some of them.

When I was a Christian I was continually embarrassed by people like bwinwright but they were usually protected from criticism by being behind a lectern, and frequently funny clothing and odd titles.

So while you may find atheism unconscionable (as I once did) I do not have a rabid desire to see your religious sensibilities trampled on. If you challenge my religious sensibilities of course, then I may respond in kind. ;)

Frankly I did not leave Christianity by believing in atheism (how can you believe in unbelief?), and I suspect many people who were former religious believers did not become atheists or agnostics because they did not pray or read the bible or listen to this preacher or that sermon or go to this church or attend that convention.

Atheism was where I arrived when I seriously questioned my beliefs on the basis of evidence, but it wasn't the intended destination.

[bokonon]

Can I call my penis god then? It's a part of nature, it's an integral part of human evolution, and mine's pretty damn intelligent, it often thinks for me.

Well, now we're just going in circles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDHsdQoQEocMay be NSFW.

[Dancing David]

:D:cool:In my opinion, anyone who labels their self an atheist has a mental disorder because they are ignoring some pretty glaring evidence to the contrary.

Funny, you don't present that evidence.


After reading much of what Richard Dawkins has to say about atheism, and listening to James Randi talk about the subject, it's pretty clear that they both think organized religion really sucks and has been incredibly destructive for so long, that atheism is the only intelligent choice. I get it!

there is no evidence of a deity, or deities.


However, instead of calling yourself an atheist, call yourself a non-theist, or anti-organized religion, or something else. Why? Because there is still way too much confusion about the definition of God.

That is the problem of the theists, not the atheists.


Both Dawkins and Randi believe in a God of sorts. They simply call it Nature or Evolution.

False comparison, there is no evidence for god, plenty for natural selection.

Why don't they simply come out and say it! Instead, they seem to enjoy provoking and annoying the less well educated folks who go to church and believe in some form of human-like deity.

Appeals to emotion, strawman.


You see, many who claim to be atheists do have a mental disorder because they falsely assume or claim that such things as THE LAW OF ATTRACTION simply happened or occurred WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.

No evidence of that either, you pulled that LAW out of your monkey maker.

No evidence of intelligent direction at all.


Since, in NATURE, we find that LIKE BEGETS LIKE in every form of life we have ever examined, can you honestly believe such a law was not the product of intelligence?

Um, you haven’t proved that law, I suppose it came from your monkey maker as well, you know the ones that have one hundred dollars bills in their paws.

The universe may be indifferent, but it had to be intelligent to establish such an awesome form of LAW & ORDER. To ignore this is to be mentally disturbed.

That is a TV show and a misperception, laws are models of behavior, and order is a word.



My point is that NATURE, EVOLUTION, or INTELLIGENCE would all be appropriate synonyms for God. Why not admit it?

Um, because you just asserted that , you haven't demonstrated it. Try defining all three and we will see.

Why would any rational person persist in calling their self an atheist, unless they just wanted to be condescending, arrogant, and annoying?

So, the world revolves around you in your infantile grace and I do things just to annoy you. get over yourself.


Think of God, Nature, Intelligence, The Stuff, etc., like Einstein's Unified Field, a sea of super-sophisticated intelligent energy of which EVERYTHING consists. This is what science is discovering RIGHT NOW. Who's to say each of us, little individualized god-lets within this sea of INTELLIGENCE simply manufacture our own experience with our thoughts and feelings?

You are just making this up again, your monkey maker is going overtime.


Wouldn't this mean we are all little GODS. Why fight it?

This is the LAW OF ATTRACTION at work too.

I am not fighting, you are just self centered.

[CurtC]

In other words you are an atheist, but you don't like the terminology. Yes?

I was thinking that, too, that he is basically describing himself as a pantheist, which is pretty much atheism. But then he describes it as INTELLIGENT, which makes it somewhat different. Then again, it does seem like he equates order with intelligence, so maybe that is pantheism.

Dunno. Don't think he does, either.

[Beerina]

I prefer dark God, from Hershey's. And God covered cherries. I worship that by the boxful.

Dark God is not the same as Semi-sweet God!

Dark God is Hershey's trying to head off the growth of the Semi-sweet God candy industry.

In other words, it pushes true Semi-sweet God off the shelves in favor of yet another Hershey's product.


Oh, and "Milk" God is a degenerate God where they add milk not to increase flavor or fat, but to reduce the amount of God in the product, to save expenses. They have you trained to think you're getting not just God, but Milk God. Oooooh! You're getting the superior Milk God.

It's like chili with beans in it -- the beans are to bulk it out so you don't have to use 100% expensive meat. And chili-mac, chocolate, don't get me started! :mad:

[RoboTimbo]

However, instead of calling yourself an atheist, call yourself a non-theist, or anti-organized religion, or something else

And you are hereby ordered to call yourself a patheticist.

[RoboTimbo]

Dark God is not the same as Semi-sweet God!

Dark God is Hershey's trying to head off the growth of the Semi-sweet God candy industry.

In other words, it pushes true Semi-sweet God off the shelves in favor of yet another Hershey's product.


Oh, and "Milk" God is a degenerate God where they add milk not to increase flavor or fat, but to reduce the amount of God in the product, to save expenses. They have you trained to think you're getting not just God, but Milk God. Oooooh! You're getting the superior Milk God.

It's like chili with beans in it -- the beans are to bulk it out so you don't have to use 100% expensive meat. And chili-mac, chocolate, don't get me started! :mad:

I wasn't telling the whole story in the interest of brevity.

It isn't so much Hershey's dark God that I like, I just like my God with a higher Jesus content. I don't care for Mary God but I do like God Mary, made with a high quality Jesus powder and whole Mary. None of your 1% or 2% Mary for me. Or, chocolate save us, skim Mary.

[godless dave]

You see, many who claim to be atheists do have a mental disorder because they falsely assume or claim that such things as THE LAW OF ATTRACTION simply happened or occurred WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.

Most, if not all, atheists claim the Law of Attraction doesn't exist.

[Dancing David]

As a fellow Christian a feel really embarrased because of the piss poor argument you put forward, I must ask what are you trying to say is absolute proof apart from our religion mate? furthermore it sounds like your trying to preach to these people far too much mate.


You ought to read what witches have to say. It is why it is standard at initiations to take an oath to hold the honor of other witches as your own.

[cannotthinkofaname]

That made me laugh. Thanks Travis!



I would like to emphasise on behalf of the atheists here, that we do not condemn all Christians such as yourself for the pisspoor arguments of some of them.

When I was a Christian I was continually embarrassed by people like bwinwright but they were usually protected from criticism by being behind a lectern, and frequently funny clothing and odd titles.

So while you may find atheism unconscionable (as I once did) I do not have a rabid desire to see your religious sensibilities trampled on. If you challenge my religious sensibilities of course, then I may respond in kind. ;)

Frankly I did not leave Christianity by believing in atheism (how can you believe in unbelief?), and I suspect many people who were former religious believers did not become atheists or agnostics because they did not pray or read the bible or listen to this preacher or that sermon or go to this church or attend that convention.

Atheism was where I arrived when I seriously questioned my beliefs on the basis of evidence, but it wasn't the intended destination.

Thats cool mate I know not all athiests condemn all Christians all I meant was I was embarased by his piss poor argument for Christianity over Atheism.

Also it is not that I find Atheism unconscionable I just believe that God exists, but then I say if every one else on this forum site disagreed with me thats cool because Im not going to argue the point of who's beliefs are correct.

[Evolved Wookie]

God: It doesn't matter how big yours is; it's how you use it.

[pops out from behind his Gortex Lurking-Hide]

Just always make sure to remember to practice safe religion.

[retrieves Thermos of Deluxe Green & Black's Hot God and binoculars and returns to his seat]

[paximperium]

[pops out from behind his Gortex Lurkinh-Hide]

Just always make sure to remember to practice safe religion.

[retrieves Thermos of Deluxe Green & Black's Hot God and binoculars and returns to his seat]

REASON: The condom for the mind strong enough to withstand the largest and roughest god...or gods :eek:

[cannotthinkofaname]

You ought to read what witches have to say. It is why it is standard at initiations to take an oath to hold the honor of other witches as your own.

So are you trying to tell me I should agree with this guy? If so I do share his belief in God BUT to say Atheism is a mental disorder is very wrong of him you see when I refer to overly religious people who cannot think for them selves or have their head shoved up their ass because of their belief bwinwright is a terrific example of what I mean mate

[Evolved Wookie]

REASON: The condom for the mind strong enough to withstand the largest and roughest god...or gods :eek:

Dogmacidally lubricated?

[six7s]

REASON: The condom for the mind strong enough to withstand the largest and roughest god...or gods :eek:
LOGIC: Loading www.hersheys.com/divine-love.html (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=chocolate+god&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off) but not letting it run scripts or set cookies

-------

Hey! Look what I found!

www.chocolategod.com/ (http://www.chocolategod.com/)

It's true!

[Ron_Tomkins]

I just spoke with God and he disproves this thread.

[Jeff Corey]

Wait a sec, you said it was Hitler on the other thread.

[NewtonTrino]

Read the selfish gene and get back to us.

[cj.23]

OK, I am going to reply to the OP. Firstly I will state my bias I - am a Christian (Anglican). I disagree with Richard Dawkins on a few matters, but I have NEVER seem James Randi mock organised religion, or treat it with other than intelligent scepticism. I have a great deal of respect for both these people.

Now, over on RichardDawkins.net we recently had threads which suggested that theists were cowardly, stupid, and insane. I finally grew weary and responded, so I'll be rehashing from that argument... My title there was Atheists, insane dimwitted & cowardly? but our sentiments couls not be further apart.

"OK I obviously believe my title is utter crap. I think my point should be clear to anyone who read the current F&R threads titles on this page. :naughty:

I'm sure that some small number of atheists are mentally ill. So what? Many of us are mentally ill, and you know what? Mental illness does not necessarily impair ones reasoning on all aspects of life, make one a immoral or bad person, or mean one is not worthy of respect.

I'm sure that some small number of atheists are not very bright. So what? Many of us are of average or below intelligence, and you know what? Being less than Einstein does not necessarily mean one can't be right sometimes, make one a immoral or bad person, or mean one is not worthy of respect.

I'm sure that some small number of atheists are not very brave. So what? Many of us are scared of things, and you know what? The neurotic may well live longer, and being afraid does not make one a fool or unjust, or mean one is not worthy of respect. We all show fear unless we are inhuman somehow?

SO why this constant labeling of all theists as inferior in these ways? It's all a bit depressing. Sure, give me evidence that theists are on average of lower IQ, and I'll look at it, as I have many times, and discuss the implications. Argue religion is irrational or a delusion if you want, and I'll argue back. What I find slight worrying is the often dogmatic tone of superiority and absolute assurance one finds.

I'm pretty certain I'm wrong on a lot of things, and have a degree of confidence in other findings, but my beliefs are provisional upon my current reading of the evidence. So often however we seem to see a small minority who really can not imagine for a moment they could be wrong -- and I think it is a small minority. Most atheists on this board are entirely reasonable, easy going and evidence based thinkers who have reached sensible conclusions. Many have stood up for the theists who are being labeled as X,Y and Z, despite their major differences of belief...

Yet there remains this occasional tendency to label believers as retarded, moronic, dumb, under educated or whatever, generalizing wildly - and i thank the many atheist posters who have made this point already -- but I have to ask - even if it was true, what logical correlation is there between the attributes of religious believers and the existence or otherwise of a deity? Is there one? There may well be, but if you are going to make this argument I'd like someone to at least draw the connection for me..."

Now I was defending theists from claims theism was a mental disorder, but exactly the same holds true for atheism. Atheists are in no sense mentally ill - let me expand -- from a later post

"I too have experienced the horrors of depressive illness, and agree that to make an analogy is NOT to belittle people. I need to expand on that point properly, because a poster a few posts back said some things i thought very sensible and yep, to draw an analogy between X and Y is not to say that X is necessarily Y. I can think of a lot of friends with mental health issues i would far prefer to be in the company of, or stake my life on, than some theists I know. :) I am not sure to what extent mental illness can be ascribed to delusional thinking - delusions were in my clinical experience (RMN Psychiatric Nurse trained) very limited in patient behaviours I experienced at work. DSMIV defines a delusion as follows


"A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith).

There is an interesting point there, which I have bolded - I think we can ignore the last bit which is a sop to religious sentiments (more on this in DSM IV another time.) A delusion is defined not as a false belief, or even a wacky belief, but a belief that clearly stands against incontrovertible proof or evidence. The majority of religious beliefs can not be therefore in psychiatric terms, using formal diagnostic procedures, termed delusional regardless of the unnecessary and bizarre caveat about articles of religious faith. (I find the cultural bit a problem as well: cultures can have consensual (hegemonic) ideas of reality which have bugger all to do with objective reality, but that is another question - I can see why the DSM evades the implications of exploring these issues for pragmaticism's sake.

(snip)

In fact the medical definition used is usually based again on pragmaticism - is this person functional, or are they a threat to themselves or others? If you want to believe pixies live in your tea pot few people in medicine would intervene unless it made you unwell, unhappy, or made your life or that of your family extremely difficult. I think the wiki article summarises Jaspers famous criteria for delusion - hang on - here we go...


Although non-specific concepts of madness have been around for several thousand years, the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers was the first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his book General Psychopathology. These criteria are:

* certainty (held with absolute conviction)
* incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
* impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

Some religious beliefs may fall in to category 3, but the believers themselves are responsible for categories 1 & 2. So we can not say "religious beliefs are delusional" but rather "some religious believers are delusional"? That strikes me as an important difference. I have met many materialists whose handling of their own philosophical ideas are clearly in line with 1 & 2 - but materialism in our culture is an acceptable belief pattern, so 3 does not enter in, therefore they are not delusional, merely close minded or dogmatic. However f we were holding this conversation in 16th century England, 3 might be invoked. 3 must always be understood in the context of current knowledge, or in the light of cultural common sense, and both are dangerous.

In 1850's a melancholic occasionally hypochondriac fellow named Chas Darwin, Esq argued forcibly an idea that he held with 1) near certainty (he had occasional doubts, but his logic had led him to conviction), against the limits of what physic said was possible at the time (2) as the sun was not old enough to allow the timescales needed for his theory. Now of course Darwin was complete right, the physicists and biologist who doubted him wrong, and his idea was presented in a reasoned and rational manner - he was never regarded as insane (unlike say Alfred Wegener, who developed the notion of Continental Drift.) However my point is that delusion is ultimately a subjective term, unless we rigorously enforce that bolded bit in the DSM definition. :) (And even then, Darwin's idea was simply impossible by the physics of the time.)"

Then someone responded "no believer are insane, you are playing semantics" and i grew a little more passionate --

Not really. I used to work (as i mentioned in my previous post) in the field of mental health. I have a great deal of time and respect for mentally ill people, and think using "mental illness" as a club to beat theists, atheists or any other "out group" with is not just crap - like those who violate Godwin's Law - it also stigmatizes a group who suffer enough stigma in our society, by using them as a perjorative. In short it's something so low I regard it as the tactics of ****wits.

Now saying theists are mentally ill is actually fine - if you mean it, and can show evidence. That is why I quoted DSM IV - because a lack of precision, of actual understanding, is the root of much stigmatism of schizopherenics, the bipolar, and many other groups. Hell the mentally handicapped and homosexuals get enough of this **** -- their situation used as an insult by the ignorant. So in short, if you are going to make this argument, ****ing mean it, and know what you are talking about, and be willing to argue from psychiatry or medical evidence why you are right. Diagnostic criteria are not semantics - they are there for a bloody good reason - to protect some of the more vulnerable people in our society from being mistreated, mislabeled and help to provide them with appropriate support and medication. You want to argue with the DSM? Sure, feel free - I do a lot - but you are arguing with medical orthodoxy. That is a separate issue.

I have NO problem with an analogy, as I remarked. If you want to say "in some respects, religion is like certain forms of delusion (in a non-medical lay sense)" fair enough. X is like Y is fine. X=Y is not. I know plenty of fine bipolar, schizophrenic, OCD, depressive, etc, etc atheists. Suggesting they are like fundie whackjobs is a blow in the face: in one case the illness arises from causes outside the victims control, in the other, they are morally culpable for their actions and beliefs.

I don't think this is semantics. I'm pretty passionate this is about the value of human beings, and not using crude labels as a way of beating any group. Hence my insistence on technical precision. I hope that clarifies my position.
:cheers:

Everything I said about labelling theists as mentally ill I hold equally and passionately true with regard to atheists. I hope this may in some small way contribute ot the discussion...

cj x

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I call TROLL or, better yet, Usenet LOON on Mr bwinwright. Check the postings on talk.atheism of "John P. Boatwright".

http://groups.google.ca/groups/profile?hl=en&show=more&enc_user=R3FgPBAAAABspd5TbtEa2Zylv_xeLBlJ&group=alt.atheism

I guess Usenet is really dying. :sniff:

[Macoy]

I call TROLL or, better yet, Usenet LOON on Mr bwinwright. Check the postings on talk.atheism of "John P. Boatwright".

http://groups.google.ca/groups/profile?hl=en&show=more&enc_user=R3FgPBAAAABspd5TbtEa2Zylv_xeLBlJ&group=alt.atheism

I guess Usenet is really dying. :sniff:

You have my vote.

[six7s]

Check the postings on talk.atheism of "John P. Boatwright".

http://groups.google.ca/groups/profile?hl=en&show=more&enc_user=R3FgPBAAAABspd5TbtEa2Zylv_xeLBlJ&group=alt.atheism

Oh dear, how sad, never bloody mind :p

Proof the Shroud was Given by God (http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/shroud.htm)
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/shroud.htm

So what does the Bible say about the shroud:
----------------------------------------------------------
Matches what John in Revelation said when he was
told by Jesus to write all that he saw. He then
turned and recognized Jesus with "his head and
his hair were white like wool, as white as snow"
and was surrounded by GOLDEN candle sticks.

This shows up when the shroud image is intensity
NEGATIVE and the color remains POSITIVE:

http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/shroud.jpg

<snip/>

Note: The above information was written by John P. Boatwright and is freely given. The information is simply my opinion based on how I perceive the content discussed. Anyone reading such should use their own judgement as to whether or not the information has any value to them. You may copy portions of the above opinions as long as a reference to this page is included and no text within said portion is altered. If copied to another medium other than the internet, include the entire text. The above content may change over time.

Best wishes.

:(

[Abdul Alhazred]

I have always (until I found out otherwise in the last couple of years) beleived that that the song You're So Vain contained a line about "Clowns in my Coffee". The fact that I have always thought that doesn't make me right.

Just brush my teeth before you leave me ...






On the original subject: I'm what's called a "strong atheist". But with the right definition I might be an agnostic or even a believer.

However, that's bait and switch.

Some vaguely defined organizing force unknown to science never motivated anybody to do anything, including start an argument about it.

I disbelieve in the existence of those gods which are believed in.

[Abdul Alhazred]

:D

http://i37.tinypic.com/flj51j.jpg http://i34.tinypic.com/20fb5td.jpg

[Abdul Alhazred]

I heard a fellow on the radio say that Padre Pio had conversations with souls in purgatory. Which is good evidence for the existence of purgatory, thereby confounding the Protestants.

Are you calling Padre Pio a liar?

[Foster Zygote]

:D

http://i37.tinypic.com/flj51j.jpg http://i34.tinypic.com/20fb5td.jpg

The Shroud of Convair?

[calebprime]

Just brush my teeth before you leave me ...






On the original subject: I'm what's called a "strong atheist". But with the right definition I might be an agnostic or even a believer.

However, that's bait and switch.

Some vaguely defined organizing force unknown to science never motivated anybody to do anything, including start an argument about it.

I disbelieve in the existence of those gods which are believed in.


Artist: Juice Newton
Song: Angel Of The Morning
Real Lyric: Just call me angel of the morning.
Just touch my cheek as you leave me.
Misheard Lyric: Just Harvey Bangel in the morning.
Just touch the leek as you see me.
User: Anonymous
Genre: Pop


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDLmfAkaXw4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iYPqN6iQ5k&feature=related

http://www.kissthisguy.com/search_results.php?SearchType=Song&SearchAccuracy=is&SearchTerm=angel+of+the+morning

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TMtIj6kW6w&feature=related

because i'm nuts!!

[calebprime]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZM3OJ1X178&feature=related

something terrible is gonna happen'


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y16Ac9O9Alc&feature=related

my fave

[calebprime]

sorry, can't help it


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv2iSqerOj4&feature=related

skeeter davis


yar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv2iSqerOj4&feature=related


dahling . uh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpNKSle2xQo

what was that Motel called?

The Country Club Motel

just skänkt 50000 kronor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMwUq4RIr6Q

jah, insveden we klapp on 2 and 4

boids

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEwg_pC32EI&feature=related


with studio polishing, pitch correction, Crissie Hynde sounds ok...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT7euLx8ecc&feature=related

[SezMe]

I can wear any old label I choose, and you just get to deal and get on with your own life!
There, take that bwinwright. And her label is "Spotted Dick" Take that double. :)

[SezMe]

Well, now we're just going in circles.
May be NSFW.
Nah, it's ok for work because it doesn't work. :)

[pitbone]

In my opinion, anyone who labels their self an atheist has a mental disorder because they are ignoring some pretty glaring evidence to the contrary.

I'm a bit dismayed that after wading through 7 pages of posts on the other thread and 100-some posts here, I have yet to read of any of this "glaring evidence to the contrary" you speak of.

FYI, smilies and all caps don't count as evidence; nor does anything starting with the words 'I believe'.

Please, either present real evidence, retort the numerous intelligent queries presented on either of your recent threads or stop making wild, observationally biased, insulting assertions and then accusing respondents of doing the same.

Just to clarify:

THIS STATEMENT IS NOT EVIDENCE!!!!!

:D (not evidence)

:cool: (also not evidence)

I believe that the world is ruled by my cat and he has chosen me as the next messiah because he chooses not to run away. (Not evidence)

THAT STATEMENT IS NOT EVIDENCE!!!!! (Nor is it any closer to being evidence than the 1st time it was written, or the 3rd, or 4th, etc.)

<anything written in the bible or any other text from thousands of year ago with no verifiable source and no scientific backing> (not evidence)

I'd really, honestly like to hear your cohesive arguments, if you have any. But so far you're not even holding water as an intelligent theist, you're just spouting gibberish.

Cheers.

[/likely wasted breath]

[slingblade]

There, take that bwinwright. And her label is "Spotted Dick" Take that double. :)


Oooh. Somehow, I feel used, and yet I like it. :p

[Elizabeth I]

Artist: Juice Newton
Song: Angel Of The Morning
Real Lyric: Just call me angel of the morning.
Just touch my cheek as you leave me.
Misheard Lyric: Just Harvey Bangel in the morning.
Just touch the leek as you see me.
User: Anonymous
Genre: Pop


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDLmfAkaXw4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iYPqN6iQ5k&feature=related

http://www.kissthisguy.com/search_results.php?SearchType=Song&SearchAccuracy=is&SearchTerm=angel+of+the+morning

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TMtIj6kW6w&feature=related

because i'm nuts!!

[bolding mine]

Um, long, long before Juice Newton, it was Merrilee Rush (Merrilee and the Turnabouts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrilee_Rush).) I actually met her for about 3 seconds in 1968 when I was working for the summer at Yellowstone Park and the group traveled through.

[calebprime]

[bolding mine]

Um, long, long before Juice Newton, it was Merrilee Rush (Merrilee and the Turnabouts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrilee_Rush).) I actually met her for about 3 seconds in 1968 when I was working for the summer at Yellowstone Park and the group traveled through.




that's the one I said was my fave, but I didn't say it was Merrilee Rush.

She's great.

and, for another laugh,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0Oi0AaCmPg&feature=related

[Beanbag]

Hey! Look what I found!

www.chocolategod.com/ (http://www.chocolategod.com/)

It's true!
Oooh! Oooh! Oooh! Did you notice it has a Pigasus at the top of the page?

Must be divine intervention.

Beanbag

[calebprime]

letting Juice put the dignity back into it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqpP4VqpQnk&feature=related


this makes me cry

[Dancing David]

So are you trying to tell me I should agree with this guy? If so I do share his belief in God BUT to say Atheism is a mental disorder is very wrong of him you see when I refer to overly religious people who cannot think for them selves or have their head shoved up their ass because of their belief bwinwright is a terrific example of what I mean mate

Wow, I think you read a lot more into that than I wrote. I was thinking more along the lines of not laughing out loud at what some of my fellow practioners have said. It is also a prophylactic oath in that it is supposed to keep the more stupid ones from dragging everybody down. (Not that it works, just like the condoms on the night stand.)

I don't think I said anything about your behavior at all. Nor did i suugest what you should do in the least.

BTW Welcome to the Forum, dude.

[Dancing David]

There was always Ho Ho Ho its , my d1ck, you know...

Ho Ho HO its magic, you know, never beleive its not so...

[Wolfman]

Ya' know, even back in the days when I was a fundamentalist Christian, I laughed at people like bwinwright. You know, the ones who came up with "logical arguments" that "disproved" atheism beyond all shadow of a doubt? (Met quite a few of these in my days at Bible College).

The thing is, I never thought of atheism as being either illogical or unrealistic. I simply thought of it as "wrong". Heck, come on...I was in a belief system that asked me to believe things that were completely impossible by any known physical laws nevertheless happened.

My viewpoint was, actually, the opposite. That being an atheist was the "easy way out" or the "lazy way out". You had all your answers handed to you on a platter, in a completely logical and consistent manner. No need for faith, no need for some higher power. It took faith to believe that there was something more out there, that there was something beyond that which we could observe, and measure. And it was that faith, I felt, which made me superior to atheists. Its easy to believe in that for which you have abundant evidence; it takes guts to believe in that which you cannot prove.

Of course, as time went by, my viewpoint changed, and I came to see that not only could I not produce evidence to support my beliefs, and had to believe by faith (something with which I did not have a real problem at the time), but that there was evidence that directly contradicted my beliefs. It was one thing to believe something existed without proof; it was something else entirely to actually dismiss or ignore actual evidence that contradicted my beliefs.

[Foster Zygote]

There was always Ho Ho Ho its , my d1ck, you know...

Ho Ho HO its magic, you know, never beleive its not so...

Don't come around tonight
It's bound to take your life
There's a bathroom on the right