Are Theists Insane?
Offline Obviously it varies from person to person on the level of delusion/commitment to the delusion, but whenever I read a very involved Christian's testimony about Jesus or God in their life, the warning lights go off in my head.
It's worrying and fascinating to read people's "revelations" and conversations about being a Christian. One forum asks people why Christian guys "flirt so much"? (I know, I know) Here's one eerie response:
1) christian guys lack to cojones to actually ask a girl out on a date, thus the flirting and leading multiple girls on. it's safe and protects their cowardly hearts from rejection
2) they want to be wise like solomon so a harem full of girls they are "getting to know" seems like a good idea to them
3) christian guys say they want to get married, when in actuality they just want to get the connection and intimacy without the commitment, like their heathen counterparts have taught them so well
4) the church encourages guys to use the God card, and so they do. a lot. and women fall for it
5) lastly, if you are a girl and you are being hit on by the flirt guy, hit back...literally. and leave him to the stupid girls who buy his line.
When I read things like this, it makes me question someone's intellect. Then again, there are plenty of very intelligent theists. So what do you think, what makes a theist insane, or all they all insane?
Do some people have pre-dispositions to theism while others don't? I went to Hebrew School and was given the opportunity to be Jewish, but I never took it. I always rejected it. Some people raised in very religious households reject it instantly, while others never let it go.
*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*
"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby
- Login to post comments
Offline HisWillness wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Any man who "represses" a woman does not have to go home to her and pay for it.
Is this connected in the way that it demonstrates a kind of insanity? Or is this an actual, rational reason in your mind to repress a woman? Because that would be sad, in that it illustrates a problematic relationship dynamic between you and the women of your personal experience.
You appear to work overtime trying to find fault with what I post while studiously avoiding what I do post.
Maybe my question was too vague. I was asking you what the hell your post had to do with the topic.
One does not have to pay too much attention in life to notice it is women who create behavior and impose them on other women.
I feel a rant coming on that will be totally unrelated to the mental health of theists.
How, pray tell, does a man repress a woman?[rant]
I'll repeat: you have a problematic relationship with the women of your personal experience. That's not judgemental, that's a statement of apparent fact. You could have spared us all by saying "I've had negative experiences in my relationships with women", as that would be less circuitous.
Now if the purpose is to yammer on with feminist gibberish have fun. They invent more meaningless terms than theologians.
Do you think a woman should get paid the same as a man for the same amount of work? Because then you're a feminist. If you're angry that women's roles in society have changed, then that's a different issue.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline I think it's odd that atheist run with this sort of thinking in these forums, such as the ill-fated campaign of trying to get theism defined as a mental illness, it speaks more about a sense of insecurity and misanthropy among particular atheist, than it does for their intelligence.
You'll note that it's a question, and not a statement of fact.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline I've always been flirtatious, in fact probably more so when I was an atheist, but that wasn't out of my disbelief, but rather during the adult years of my disbelief, I worked in profession where i'd deal with an influx of attractive woman all the time.
Pardon me, and this has nothing to do with the content of your post, but I seem to recall you saying in the thread about the black church (before Kevin accidentally deleted the post when trying to delete just the duplicate post) that you were upset by the somewhat heavy hand Kevin dropped but that you'd be more aware about posting in FTA in the future...
- Login to post comments
Offline I came here to say "Yes, of course" but I misread the title to read "inane"
Aw. And you're the one person (I think) who's actually qualified to comment!
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline ... such as the ill-fated campaign of trying to get theism defined as a mental illness,
What campaign was that? The notion that there is a parallel has been suggested by many in the past, that is true (and for what it's worth it is not a fair analogy in my view), but to then call such views a "campaign" suggests to me a rather disproportionate reaction on your part.
Delusional behaviour such as theism engenders, and irrational beliefs in paranormal qualities ascribed to fictional entities, are both symptoms of certain mental disorders, which is why the analogy presents itself and it would be strange if it was never publicly noted that religion encourages both of these characteristics in its adherents. Some atheists have done just that, perhaps exaggeratedly since the analogy ignores another critically important aspect to religion - when it attains a critical mass in terms of adherence within a society then another characteristic of human behaviour kicks in, namely a desire to conform which overrides other things in the mind of many, such as to rationally evaluate just what they are conforming to. Labelling conformists "insane" is not only irrelevant but it is an unhelpful strategy in persuading people of the folly of their thinking.
Simply said, it puts religionists on the defensive and then yet another typical trait of religionist behaviour kicks in, the almost paranoid tendency to exaggerate the perceived threat to their views - as you seemingly illustrate perfectly in labelling a contrary (and not fully thought out) view as a "campaign" with all which that word implies. Paranoia, by the way, is also a symptom of some mental disorders so it seems strange to employ it in one's defence against charges of being mentally unwell. I would have thought a rational exposition of how it is eminently sane to believe in whatever irrational views your religion encourages you to hold would be a more intelligent response - if such a thing is at all possible.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
- Login to post comments
Offline paranoid tendency to exaggerate the perceived threat to their views - as you seemingly illustrate perfectly in labeling a contrary (and not fully thought out) view as a "campaign" with all which that word implies.
Well, i tend to use words rather loosely, and not in any strict sort of literalistic sense, that by "campaign" I was implying something of the size of a presidential campaign. I often label individuals here as part of a choir, or as cheerleaders, but the use of words were not intended for individuals to believe that I was referring to them as literal singing group, or chicks with pompoms.
I used the term "campaign" in a loose sense, to the limits of what a thesaurus would allow:
crusade, fight, battle, push, press, strive,struggle, lobby.
Pardon me, and this has nothing to do with the content of your post, but I seem to recall you saying in the thread about the black church (before Kevin accidentally deleted the post when trying to delete just the duplicate post) that you were upset by the somewhat heavy hand Kevin dropped but that you'd be more aware about posting in FTA in the future....
oops, my apologies, you're right. I had written a response here some time ago, and had saved it as an email draft but had forgotten to post. And I saw this thread again in the recent post sections, and only then remember the draft i had saved. I guess I wasn't being as careful as I had desired to be, and only realized after reading your post that I was once again in the freethinking section. I tend to find post to respond to by only looking the recent post section, and I'm guessing this won't be the last time I accidentally wonder into these forums. But thanks for pointing it out, and I'll leave now.
My apologizes to those who were seeking a response from me such as Nordey, perhaps some other time, in areas designated for use for the both of us.
- Login to post comments
Offline I don't think Newton was insane. I don't think Martin Luther King was insane. I don't think Desmond Tutu is insane. I don't think Jeremiah Wight is insane. I don't think the Catholic group that lit up Rome's Coliseum to honor New Mexico's recent abolition of the death penalty were insane. I don't think that the faith community in New Mexico that lobbied for abolishment of the death penalty were insane.
We would do well to remember that a perfectly secular government dropped nukes on populated cities, for then to exhibit the plane that dropped them in the Air & Space Museum to celebrate anniversaries. We should also note that religious activists gather regularily to stage protests and actions against this insane concept.
We atheists need to take a serious look at ourselves and ask what it is that makes us want to keep our heads far up our own asses.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
- Login to post comments
Offline "We atheists"? What is this, a new religion?
Your little historical summary above reeks of bias in its terminology too. Ok, so the original question was badly phrased, but rebutting it with wonky analysis of historical events in order to set up a parting shot in which further crap analysis is matched only by the arrogance and contempt with which it's delivered only advertises that your own head seems a much more likely candidate for assisted anal traction.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
- Login to post comments
Offline Ok, so the original question was badly phrased,
Yes it was.
"We atheists"? What is this, a new religion?
We gather to pass judgement on people who differ from us in their beliefs, we have our idols, we oversimplify the reality to suit our own picture of good and bad, we even congregate in places that are off-limits to people with other beliefs. Yes, it is a religion. A product of rational minds with consequences, just like any other religion.
Your little historical summary above reeks of bias in its terminology too.
That was not a historical summary, you know that. I did try to define insane as not-those-people, if you would notice. I also mentioned some secular governmental structures and defined them as insane by same standards, just for the purpose of discussion.
but rebutting it with wonky analysis of historical events in order to set up a parting shot in which further crap analysis is matched only by the arrogance and contempt with which it's delivered only advertises that your own head seems a much more likely candidate for assisted anal traction.
I resent wonky - all of the things I have said are correct. Some of those events are current and ongoing.
I am not sure what "parting shot" means, but if it's something like "I would like to put a stop to a redicilous discussion and possibly start a more meaningful one", then yes it was a parting shot. As to "crap analysis", maybe you should try some good analysis instead of the ad hominem bs.
And yes, my own head probably needs relocation as well in many questions - good thing to remember in general and kindof why I bothered to post 
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:I am reminded of the idiot feminists supporting the conquest of Afghanistan by describing the plight of the youngest wife in the extended family. When I read the tear-jerker description I noticed these conditions were imposed upon the youngest wife by the oldest wife NOT by her husband.
You haven't a notion of life in Afghanistan under the Taliban if that's the extent of your analysis of women's status and treatment in that society.
This is a bit off-topic, but I have to respond. Not excusing Nonny here, 'cause I don't think anyone can physically do that, but have you checked how women in Afghanistan are doing at the moment? Between acid in the faces of girls who dare go to school and reintroduction of the harshest Sharia around the country - not too fucking good, I can assure you of that.
Never for a second was wellfare of Afghany women even in the wildest dreams of people who planned and executed the invasion, so excusing it with some imaginary progress in the matter is completely retarded. It's nice to build on opportunity, but we will have to create it first.
To get back to the topic - maybe we should support some of those insane religious people, like the (International) Fellowship of Reconciliation, and help create the opportunity.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
- Login to post comments
Offline manofmanynames wrote:I've always been flirtatious, in fact probably more so when I was an atheist, but that wasn't out of my disbelief, but rather during the adult years of my disbelief, I worked in profession where i'd deal with an influx of attractive woman all the time.
Pardon me, and this has nothing to do with the content of your post, but I seem to recall you saying in the thread about the black church (before Kevin accidentally deleted the post when trying to delete just the duplicate post) that you were upset by the somewhat heavy hand Kevin dropped but that you'd be more aware about posting in FTA in the future...
Also, beware reading what we post, it sometimes contains bigotry and meaningles rant directed against religious people, which you of course have no right to answer. Think of it as a kind of group therapy, not as what society would look like if we structured it. 'Cause we are atheists, we wouldn't be opressing people.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
- Login to post comments
With tongue in cheek, I'll say that you have to be a little nuts to believe the world is 6000 years old. With my science hat on, I'll say that our definition of insane really needs some reworking. Are theists insane? Probably a lot of them at some level, but the truth is, we need to completely revamp our concepts of sane and insane.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Sad and desperate, little bit insane too.
"Sane" and "Insane" are more legal issues than anything else. In the mental health profession we're really only worried about issues that are preventing a person from having a satisfying life. (That is: It's an issue to be afraid of being outside only if that means the person with the fear can't leave the house to do the things they need to do.)
From that perspective, however, there are definitely those with religion who are being prevented from having a satisfying life because of the religion.
The eerie example in your post, Peppermint, illustrates that perfectly. If that's the relationship process involved for a religious man, then I'd have to recommend to such a man that they re-think their religious beliefs. Repression does quite a number on the psyche, as well as cause problems for those around the repressed.
(P.S. Point #5 - great advice!)
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Most 'theists' deep in their psyche don't really believe. They either fall for Pascal's wager(which really is not belief) or it's just a habit developed through indoctrination. If one did really believe, one would have a hard time coping with and functioning in the real world. Most Christians compartmentalize when they 'believe'. So, they'll 'believe' or not believe depending on what is convenient for a given situation.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
As one who has used the 'god' card in the past, its effectiveness is not in question.
If she thinks that you will be as remorseful as she is for pre-marital sex then it gives her the leeway needed to do more than just lay down and spread 'em.
Post-coital prayer is a nice touch.
I didn't have to do any of that with my spouse. She took to 'sin' like a duck to water for the first 5 years. Now, she says nothing we do can be 'sin' because we're married. lol.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
I am almost wholy convinced that theists are simply lacking a grounding in reality. Without such a grounding, insanity is an obvious response. I don't think it is anything more than a symptom however. Cure the lack of grounding in reality, and the insanity must fade.
With exceptions to the rule, of course. Some people are simply bat shit insane, no matter their beliefs or lack thereof.
Edit:
And some people are just power hungry assholes that like to manipulate others.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Any man who "represses" a woman does not have to go home to her and pay for it.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
I love you too
What Would Kharn Do?
I think insane has to mean the level of delusion is so great that a person cannot function in the society he/she lives in.
From that (my) definition most theists are not insane as their delusions do not stop them functioning.
I mean even the godhatesfags group isnt so deluded that they actually go around killing gay people as they know full well they would be arrested and punished (in this world for it)
Is this connected in the way that it demonstrates a kind of insanity? Or is this an actual, rational reason in your mind to repress a woman? Because that would be sad, in that it illustrates a problematic relationship dynamic between you and the women of your personal experience.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Oxford English Dictionary
Insane
1 in or relating to an unsound state of mind; seriously mentally ill.
2 extremely foolish; irrational.
If we go by the definition, every person who believes in woo-woo is insane.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
I think it was a joke commenting on how house wives will yell at their husbands to do things while the husband in supposedly oppressing her. You know like you oppress her and not let her do what she wants but then eventually you give in for sex.
Theists are not insane. Nor are they easily lumped together under any single definition in any case, since even the extent of their delusion can vary immensely from any given theist to the next.
What they share is a particular expression of a weakness which is by no means restricted to them and them alone - the tendency to the perversion of truth rather than to the adoption of the mental discipline to ascertain it. This can signify in some individuals a low intellectual capacity, in others simply a laziness of sorts, in yet others a desire to acquire power, prestige or simply just a sense of status from this behaviour, and in others nothing less than that they have been so conditioned that an alternative is quite literally unthinkable. In theism this tendency, regardless of what else motivates or sustains it, is fed by a pre-prepared "package" of data designed for one purpose only - to perpetuate itself.
As with other more materially debilitating afflictions, the theist's vulnerability is increased at a rate dependent on whether the effect of this false data on their mental function can be described as benign or malignant. In its more benign manifestation the theist normally compartmentalises the "diseased" portion of their mental faculties in such a way that they can, to all intents and purposes, pursue a normal life (in this case "normal" being a healthy recognition of what is real and unreal in every facet except their "religious faith" ). This is actually quite an intelligent and eminently sane approach to coping with an affliction without going the whole hog and having it cured.
Unfortunately however a significant percentage of the victims in the case of theism suffer a more malignant version of the affliction. In some of these victims the result is quite often indistinguishable from any recognised psychiatric afflictions in which delusion plays a major symptomatic role. What makes this particular illness completely reprehensible is that a feature of this delusion is the compunction felt by the sufferer to infect others, and that the disease is prevalent enough for that compunction to be socially "acceptable", even encouraged. This is not necessarily insane behaviour, of course, but it is unhealthy behaviour - for both the victims and the society which harbours them.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
I dont think insanity is a property of only theists.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
No, I get that. I was just using a general term to spark discussion.
*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*
"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby
I came here to say "Yes, of course" but I misread the title to read "inane"
You appear to work overtime trying to find fault with what I post while studiously avoiding what I do post.
To my point, I am reminded of the idiot feminists supporting the conquest of Afghanistan by describing the plight of the youngest wife in the extended family. When I read the tear-jerker description I noticed these conditions were imposed upon the youngest wife by the oldest wife NOT by her husband.
One does not have to pay too much attention in life to notice it is women who create behavior and impose them on other women.
How, pray tell, does a man repress a woman? As we are talking the good old days where the local village and the farmers around it were all relatives beating a wife was not available for all her male relatives. And in the good old days there were different standards of justice. Yes a man was legally responsible for the actions of his wife and he had to punish her as the local villagers or nobility could not. Who created these laws and standards? The local extended family, the relatives. The standards for men are set by men and for women by women.
Other than beating what does repression mean? Not allowing them to vote when no one could vote? Not allowing them to own property when they were all serfs attached to the land? What is left? I am certain a creative man can think of something.
And that is where my comment comes in. Repress all you want and eat what she cooks for you regardless of the emetics or whatever it in or starve. Repress all you want and become intimate with your hand every night. Go against the wishes of women and it is Lysistrada time.
I can only speak from the point of view of two ex-wifes and two long term co-habitations. I do know for a fact long term relationships are nothing like long term living together. And I can say there is no particular difference between married and not. Repression? I don't know how.
Intrude on how she raises the children? How? Only when you are home at the most. The kids know who is in charge and they know who they are required to say is in charge.
Now if the purpose is to yammer on with feminist gibberish have fun. They invent more meaningless terms than theologians.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
Yeah. And burn them damn Jews! They're plotting against us.
Isn't that right Nony?
You haven't a notion of life in Afghanistan under the Taliban if that's the extent of your analysis of women's status and treatment in that society.
Well one can make a fair contribution to the process by being an ignoramus.
If you actually bothered to educate yourself about the subject you would not have to wait for a "creative man" to come along and inform you. Your specious definition of repression serves your prejudicial viewpoint but comes nowhere close to even touching on the nature of repression, its causes, its many manifestations both historically and in contemporary society, and its costs.
Now you're either being excessively modest about your capabilities or intentionally dishonest. I suspect the latter.
You appear to suffer from a rather pronounced knee-jerk reaction to anything you perceive as "left wing" thinking which propels you into inanity, and apparently very bad-tempered inanity at that. For the sake of your own mental well-being you might consider treatment. Being a slave to such arbitrary impulses cannot be good for you in the long term (or, as your post above intimates, for those close to you either).
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
Speaking of theists and insanity, this is a repost from my blog:
***********************************
LINK
An obviously deranged man shot a female student and then killed himself at a community college over the weekend. As you watch the news report, you’ll note that Anthony seems to be having a very hard time with the idea of evolution. He was raised Christian, and taught, as are many Christians, that evolution is false, and that we are most certainly not descended from monkeys. (Yes, I know, we’re not descended from monkeys. I’m… (ahem) aping what he’s been taught.)
As I skimmed through a lot of web chatter about this story, I’ve noticed the predictable rhetoric coming from both sides:
Atheists: See! You shouldn’t indoctrinate your children! This poor man killed a woman because of Christianity.
Christians: NOOOO!!! His Christianity didn’t have anything to do with it! He’s crazy, and would have snapped regardless of how he was raised.
I submit to you that they are both wrong. We simply can’t go back in time, raise Anthony as a freethinker, and see if he’d still snap and kill somebody. The Christians might be right. He might have been so mentally deranged from birth that something like this was inevitable. The atheists might be right, too. The cognitive dissonance of higher science based education might have been too much for his indoctrinated, inflexible worldview, and it might have been the catalyst that drove him to murder and suicide. There’s no way to know for sure, and I don’t think there’s any reason to speculate.
Nevertheless, I think there are things we can learn from what we certainly do know. From Anthony’s own video, it’s obvious that he had some issues with evolution. We know that these issues were near the front of his mind when he was contemplating suicide and murder, and we can see from his own reactions that he was convinced that evolution is a lie. The only reasonable conclusion is that this viewpoint came from Christian indoctrination. We can therefore reasonably conclude that Anthony’s indoctrination also included many, or perhaps all of the other traditional Christian teachings. We can imagine that he felt he was sinful for lusting after his victim. He might very well have believed that she was a sinner for dancing provacatively, or perhaps for sexual promiscuity with someone else she was involved with. Maybe he didn’t like the way she dressed.
I’m not trying to establish anything concrete here. What I’m trying to show is that there are dozens of Christian teachings about morality, women, sex, evolution, and other subjects that are patently, demonstrably false. We must conclude that it’s very likely that Anthony was taught some, or perhaps most of these demonstrably false worldviews. What specifically his beliefs were doesn’t matter so much as the fact that they were demonstrably false.
The question I’d like to ask my readers is this: Can we realistically imagine that any of these Christian beliefs were not potentially part of Anthony’s depression and subsequent murder/suicide? Can we suggest that an unstable man, presented with a glaring cognitive dissonance about his most fervent feelings, emotions, and desires, would be better off than someone who at least saw consistency in the world?
I’d like you to think for a second about the most fervently religious people you know. Think of someone who genuinely believes that the world is 6000 years old, or that women shouldn’t speak in church, or that fantasizing about a woman before marriage is a sin. Realizing that most people with these beliefs are not mentally unstable, can you see how such drastically wrong thinking can screw up even a sound mind? Christian fundamentalists do remarkable pretzel logic, and come up with bizarre conclusions about a wide variety of subjects. I used to know a man who prayed before dinner that God would put a spiritual barrier around the table so no demons would enter him through his mouth while he ate. No kidding. Another family I once knew would make a big show of pretending to put on armor while standing in the driveway before going out “into the world.” These were basically normal people who, if examined by a psychiatrist, would probably have checked out as basically well balanced.
If otherwise normal people can be convinced to put on invisible armor, or to believe in force fields around the dinner table, can we really say that it’s a good thing for unstable people to be taught the same kinds of beliefs? The difference between unstable and stable people is that stable people have a mental filter that stops them from doing really crazy things, but let’s be honest — religion teaches crazy things!
If you haven’t cracked a Bible before, or if it’s been a long time, maybe now would be a good time. Look at what the Bible says about slaves, or menstruation, or wives, or marriage. Consider the teaching that a man ought to hate his family, or that he ought to sell everything he owns. The Bible is filled with ridiculous and dangerous instructions that sane people don’t follow. Instead, they dismiss them, or write them off as irrelevant to today. The reality, however, is that there is no real distinction. The Bible doesn’t come with instructions for discerning what’s insane and what’s just a little bit odd. To a reader without normal inhibitions, it’s a terrible book of instructions for sociopathic or psychotic behavior.
No, I can’t say that Christian teachings drove Anthony to murder and suicide, but I can say with pretty good certainty that they didn’t do anything good for him. Regardless of whether he would have done this kind of thing without Christianity, it’s easy enough to say that had he been raised a rationalist, at least he’d have had one less potential catalyst.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I'm just... stunned. 'Big Tony' finally just snapped.
Holy shit.
He was a supporter and confidant of VFX, and was, well, fairly obviously paranoid. Just look over the videos on his channel. You'd have to stretch your credibility an awfully long way to suggest that his religious beliefs had nothing to do with his final act; he was convinced of the Hovind rhetoric that scientists, teachers, atheists, communists, etc were all out to get him and destroy the world.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
[quote]It's worrying and fascinating to read people's "revelations" and conversations about being a Christian. One forum asks people why Christian guys "flirt so much"? (I know, I know) Here's one eerie response: "Why do Christian guys flirts so much?".....
I'm confused by your use of this response from another forum, in questioning the sane and insane. I mean it seems quite evident that the poster wasn't being that serous, warning girls not to be idiots falling for these sort of guys. I mean if someone asked me that question, I'd provide a sort of ridiculous response as well?
What does being a christian have to do with anything, as if being Christian makes one more flirtatious. I've always been flirtatious, in fact probably more so when I was an atheist, but that wasn't out of my disbelief, but rather during the adult years of my disbelief, I worked in profession where i'd deal with an influx of attractive woman all the time. It could be that some Christian are themselves more flirtatious in the same regards, because they are involved in far more social settings, like church on the weekends, large conventions here and there, than you're average atheist, and perhaps because the male to female ratio among atheist doesn't seem to be so evenly distributed.
So implying that someone's religion is the source of the level of his flirtation is kind of silly. And as one of my motto goes: "if you're going to ask stupid questions, you're going to get stupid answers."
It's also odd that you seem to take this one example or even a few others to ask if theists are insane. Judging that there are billions of theist that's a tall claim to be made from such scant instances. I mean, imagine if I were to judge the mental health of atheist, by MattShizzle?
I think it's odd that atheist run with this sort of thinking in these forums, such as the ill-fated campaign of trying to get theism defined as a mental illness, it speaks more about a sense of insecurity and misanthropy among particular atheist, than it does for their intelligence.