Those thoughts remind me of several run ins I had with religious delusions in the mentally unstable. First, in medical school, I met Jesus himself after he was admitted for running around a neighborhood in his underwear banging on doors with his cane trying to get people to repent. I didn’t know Jesus was a 60 year old Mexican. I was chastized a bit by the chief resident later when Jesus said he could miraculously make me speak Spanish… and then I did…You should have seen the look on his face.
Three others, all females, had the same theme. A beautiful 30ish civil engineer, a 400 lb 50 year old in a severe hypothyroid state, and an elderly woman from the nursing home, were all admitted acutely psychotic claiming to be in labor and ready to deliver the “baby Jesus”. Well, I knew they were crazy because I knew Jesus was a 60 year old Mexican. After appropriate preps and Fleets enemas, they bore down and without an episiotomy we delivered at least two renditions of our “Savior”, but none looked like the guy I knew. The big lady, though, did set my personal record for the largest piece of sacred turd I had ever seen, just before we flushed it to make room for its’ twin, which also matched anything I had seen on the floor of an elephant cage. Needless to say I didn’t encourage any bonding between mother and “child”. A little medication and fortunately all the ladies recovered their senses….take that Tom Cruise…you dumbshit.
Isbliss, I was wondering if the study mentioned the reactions of the tolerant male group? Were there any signs of sexual stimulation in this group as well? Though it would be quite poetic, that is we fear what we really want inside, I am however somewhat skeptical of this theory. That is to say, “I hate broccoli because I love broccoli?” Couldn’t this theory then be used to say that rational people, who are disappointed and hateful of religion, really secretly love religion?
Do that mean that the behavior of many who participate on this forum really just a cry for help?
IisBliss, I heard of this study before but I don’t think it holds any water. Most likely people simply respond with arousal to seeing genitalia in general, especially other peoples aroused genitalia in a sexual context. And by aroused I mean something is triggered in the brain instinctively to a vision of exposed flesh and others engaged in sexual activity. That does not make the person a homosexual, or mean that they actually want to partake in the activity themselves, or that they are not repulsed by it.
On another note -
Someone else said (or maybe it was IisBliss also) that we can beat them with their own book. No way. The simple fact is is that the book is a list of contradictions. The only way to negotiate a contradiction is to drop all of the contradicting elements except one. (i.e. Thou shalt not kill - Kill all infidels whichever you select is the one that will be true forthe moment) all quoting scripture is this practice of selectivity. If you point out the fact that these contradictions exist already prove the bible is bs? The lunatics will shrug and say “the lord works in mysterious ways,” “we simply can’t comprehend god’s meaning, which must be perfect because he is,” or some other axiom of the insane. They don’t want to hear it or aknowledge.
To cavil about idiocies in scripture is not the answer. If they want to believe in god they will. The goal is to make them hate it, to make them see that worship is evil. Ayn Rand, I think, took a step in the right direction. . . . the Fountainhead is brilliant. She focuses on the concept of servitude to anything higher as evil in itself. I think perspectives such as that, fresh angles are what we need to focus on.
Salient point, Andrey—that is, if you’re implying that an apostate author with the power of an Ayn Rand could really shake things up in a meaningful way. Or are you saying that Ayn Rand’s major accomplishment was to further the cause of reason as opposed to supersititious Deism? My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that her place in history is political, i.e. anti-communism and a brand of Federal handling of money as per her devout follower, Alan Greenspan.
Are you up to the task of designing an outline for a great anti-American novel? If so, you could team up with others I know of who have abundant philosophical dialogue material just waiting for an entertaining literary structure. Feel free to PM me.
Couldn’t this theory then be used to say that rational people, who are disappointed and hateful of religion, really secretly love religion?
There are different kinds of posters on this board. Let’s look at just two of them.
1. People that have never been religious, were not raised religious, have had no religious upbringing, and know what they know about religion from independent research.
2. People that have been in a cult or raised in a religion and after some number of years left it.
It is for example impossible for me to be “disappointed” in religion, since I never had one. It is equally impossible for me to dismiss all religious people as “stupid” or “insane”, or to foster a generalized hatred for such a large group of people based only on this one facet of their existance. So I would say that people that are dissappointed or hate religious people are bringing irrational emotional baggage to the debate, yes. Maybe because they have had closer exposure and been religious themselves, they do have a hatred of what they once believed, and a fear of it too.
I do think some atheists are just as intolerant and rabid and fanatical about their cause, and blind in some respects, as some of the fanatical religious. To me what is important is to protect everyone’s freedom of choice in their irrational insanity, while basing society and policital decisions that impact society on a firm rational basis, so that discussions can proceed with the least amount of emotional reactive involvement from both sides.
As for that study, the non-homophobe group did have less physical reaction to the gay porn, but Psi as usual got the point of the experiment, the denial.
And as for beating them with their own book, the fact it has contradictions in it makes it easier. Also, if you are like me you accept the idea of an innate level of morality within the human species, which means even those who have to get their morality off parchment at some point can see right and wrong.
I would like to propose a scenario to you…an idea. What if Jesus did in fact exist, and he was a rational person? What if the bulk of his teachings was not motivated by a desire to create a religion, but to free people from an existing dogmatic religion? What if in his day and age he was appalled by the intolerance people had toward each other, and he felt that his people were wasting their time and risking their own destruction with alot of ideas about revolution against Rome based on a book he thought was mostly BS?
In his day and age, outright logic and direct attack on those dogmatic “laws” would have meant he would have died much sooner…so he played it careful, trying to use the existing dogma to generate a new idea…even though he himself may not have believed any part of the existing mythos. He set himself up against the dogma of the time and the religious power structure of the time, and in many cases owned them with their own contradictory laws.
Anyway, just some more ways to think about things = )
I’m with Bliss here… I’ve noticed a trend in Me’s posts, and from Christians in general—they tend to phrase their beliefs as Truths that the rest of us are in denial of.
Hence what I consider a misappropriation of the word “skeptic.” Why is this title applied to non-Christians? I think it subtly implies that Christian beliefs are somehow ‘established’ (in the way, say, that Relativity or the law of gravity are), and those of us that don’t accept them are somehow lacking sense.
I think there is this constant implication that atheism and agnosticism are symptoms of some psychological damage, that they are a misguided deviance from what is ‘normal and healthy’. As if they were cults or fanatical movements.
In fact, it is the religious folks who should be referred to as the ‘skeptics.’ They are the ones challenging empirically established science and established secular law.
I think these are the reasons why folks like Me can refer to non-Christians as ‘disappointed’, as if we were John Walker Lindh misguidedly joining the Taliban. As if we are just lost sheep…
No—to paraphrase Harris, we are no more ‘disappointed’ in Christianity than we are in Zeus. We are no more “skeptics” of Christianity than you are of Zeus. We are, however, skeptical of the future of a world where there must be a ‘we’ and ‘you’ because half the world exalts Judean mythology as something more than that, and the other half doesn’t.
I’m with Bliss here… I’ve noticed a trend in Me’s posts, and from Christians in general—they tend to phrase their beliefs as Truths that the rest of us are in denial of.
Me too!
For what it’s worth on this subject, I’m noticing a trend, here in the bible belt. When I moved here in ’92, it was unheard of for someone to write a letter to the paper questioning faith in any manner whatsoever. Gradually, and especially driven by the political situation in the last few years, more and more letters are being published with a secular point-of-view.
Christians, at least in this area, are being challenged like never before. Three times a week or more, someone writes a letter questioning some aspect of belief. Everything from creationism (ID) to the origin of Christmas trees. One of the tactics they use in answering is the same we see here - amazement that any sensible person could question their faith. After all, isn’t it anchored in bedrock? Its such a sham! It would be sad if it wasn’t so dangerous! For two thousand years they have gotten away with it, for the most part, and now that they have pushed too far, and we are pushing back (finally), they cant understand it.
It is especially bad this time of year. In the fourth century, the Roman church picked late December for christ’s birthday to coincide with a pagan holiday that predated Christianity by 500 years. All of a sudden, HE is the reason for the season? Got news for you. Christianity or not, at least the Germans would still be giving gifts and carting trees inside in late December. Herod died in 3 BCE, and the so-called census that called the “holy couple” to Bethlehem (which didn’t exist in the first century, by the way) occurred no earlier than 6 CE. If they can’t even get the year closer than plus or minus nine, what makes you think they can nail the day?
Sorry for that, just the mood, I guess, I’ve just been reading the latest on icr.org
