Should theists be taken seriously?

It’s all about perspective I guess.
If god tells a politician to run for president he is a hero.
But if god tells someone to shoot a bunch of people he is insane.
Most theists would ridicule someone like a scientologist, but treat a Christian like they are normal.
We don’t listen to people like schizophrenics, but listen to people who talk to god in their heads.
Get where I am going?

How in a world of liability can we afford to listen to people who believe in fairy tales?
Theists have proven to be technically insane, especially in regards to other examples.
If they should be taken seriously?
Why, and why not others?

If we take some theists seriously then shouldnt we take all seriously? That would mean you would need to allow people to kill in the name of god; im not saying its right but thats one of the problems religions create

Theists have a mental illness and need our help, they have been brainwashed and put at risk the future of our species.

What does it matter to you? You are going to die in

Originally posted by MeesterB
What does it matter to you? You are going to die in

reply to post by WakeUpRiseUp


Not sure why you hate christians so much but whatever floats your boat. Ill pray for ya. Its really not healthy to keep all that anger inside. Go ahead and flame me ....I'm prepared. I've got my fire extinguisher right beside me. God bless!

As long as what they do does not negatively affect someone else everyone has a right to believe what they want to believe.
At the point it starts affecting someone else, just tell them its satan posing as god and be done with it.

Originally posted by britelite1971
reply to post by WakeUpRiseUp

 

Not sure why you hate christians so much but whatever floats your boat. Ill pray for ya. Its really not healthy to keep all that anger inside. Go ahead and flame me ....I'm prepared. I've got my fire extinguisher right beside me. God bless!

I dont hate christians, I feel sad for them; obviously as a problem that never gets rectified sometimes it will lead to anger but I dont hate.
I know its not healthy but its the lesser of two evils, I would rather be a voice for reality then go with the crowd.

Originally posted by kaleshchand
As long as what they do does not negatively affect someone else everyone has a right to believe what they want to believe.
At the point it starts affecting someone else, just tell them its satan posing as god and be done with it.

Thats the thing tho, all mainstream religions effect other people in society. I agree that everyone has that right but theists are abusing that right.

Hey, this is an interesting thread for the question you're posing. No easy answers to this one, but let me give it a shot for a fairly basic litmus test on who we take seriously and who we don't, Who is tolerated and who isn't.

The way I see it.... Anyone of legal age is free to worship whatever they want as long as ONE condition is met. Their worship and beliefs do no harm and cause no violation of other's rights. When that line is crossed, in whatever way it happens, they are a religious extremist if they belong to a Faith where they are on the fringe even by their own standards. IF however they are well within the mainstream of their Faith as the violate the rights of others, then the FAITH is the extremist element and that just makes the individual that much worse.

Christianity doesn't violate anyone or any rights as a routine and intended course of worship or Faith. Some elements that follow it are extremist, of course, but other Christians will be quick to call 'em on it in most cases and therein stands the difference vs. say....the Westboro nuts or, certain sects of Islam, for example. Just my opinion.

One of the key factors in insanity and mental disorder is that it creates a marked difficulty in one's daily functioning. Another key factor is that it is in the extreme minority in social behavior and overall general human functioning.

According to this, it is Atheists that we should be condemning to the nuthatch in the U.S. And probably many other countries as well.

I'm just saying, before you go throwing stones, be sure you don't live in a glass house.

reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck

reply to post by WakeUpRiseUp


I go back and forth between Agnostic Atheist and Agnostic Theist on a semi-daily basis, I live in the U.S., and I don't want to be thrown in the nuthatch.

By the actualities in modern psychology, that's exactly where I'd bloody well end up if we take your arguments all the way out.

Besides, you're basically saying that we should base our entire opinion of people, and even go so far as to declare them insane, on the basis of their opinion on one subject in the highly speculative field of metaphysics. That is what I call grounds for not taking someone seriously

reply to post by WakeUpRiseUp

I know its not healthy but its the lesser of two evils, I would rather be a voice for reality then go with the crowd.

So, you are a know it all then. Only you have all the answers for the crowd. The crowd that doesn't hear you because you claim to have all the answers. Part of being humble is not being all knowing That spot is already taken.

reply to post by WakeUpRiseUp


My friend

You are very confused...

Let me help you

Dear WakeUpRiseUp

You are making generalizations and formulating conclusions based on these generalizations that have little to nothing to do with 'Theism' proper.

Foremost, Theism is the belief that God exists (or must exist) independent of the teaching or revelation of any particular religion. You are confusing this philosophical concept with the rantings and behavior of evangelicals and other fundamentalists who oftentimes serve to dissuade introspection into this realm of philosophy. Inasmuch, Theism need not include doctrine, scripture or revelation (e.g. 'a belief in fairy tales').

Second, in light of the above, Theism also need not include the idea that the Deity is a personal one. In other words, to be a theist, you needn't have to commune with this intelligence by ESP or something (I know of several theists who hold Theistic beliefs due to philosophical consideration and introspection, yet nonetheless fail to establish any sort of 'living relationship' with this being). You make the assertion that such must be the case for all theists by writing, "If god tells a politician to run for president he is a hero, but if god tells someone to shoot a bunch of people he is insane." Also, in this line, you suggest that this thinking is reflective of popular, educated opinion, of which you are incorrect. Most people I know tend to take most everything a politician says with a rather large grain of salt, and only condone murder when in the case of self-defense.

Third, what evidence do you have to support the idea that theists as a whole, have indeed, technically been proven insane, or that they have a mental illness? Cite your source if you are going to go about making statements like that. The sophisticated theist has several valid reasons for holding a belief in God (though, please do not assume that I believe that belief is voluntary- one cannot simply change what he believes on the basis of mere desire). Among they myriad of a posteriori and a priori arguments available to justify rational belief in God, I offer yet another:
We live in a universe that is religiously ambiguous, in that one's interpretation of his experience of reality, which may be interpreted as religious, is just as reasonable as another's, whose experience may be interpreted as non-religious. You comments seem to demand the question of how reasonable it is when individuals ascribe religious significance to the world around them, or attribute a particular type of religious significance to various experiences in their lives. It is wise to do this, as the world offers no conclusive proof supporting or opposing such a belief (yet plenty of interesting consideration valuable to both positions), however, you suggest that these beliefs and experiences are nothing short of delusion. It is best to examine how we come to formulate beliefs in the first place, regardless of whether or not they are religious.
The reasonableness of a particular belief is largely dependent upon the input appealing to one's cognitive faculties. As others have more eloquently written in response to the philosophical conundrum of Descartes (in short, how are we to be certain that our perception of reality is not a grand and elaborate delusion or hallucination), one's experiences are the basis for belief, as experiences of reality serve as the input into our cognitive faculties, and if we do not doubt the general reliability of these faculties, or the (and that is the real issue), then it is reasonable, as well as rational, to form beliefs upon the basis of this input, even if this belief is in fact, mistaken or untrue.
Consider the following example: some of the greatest minds of ancient Greece were confident that the earth was flat, circular, and at the center of the cosmos – and their beliefs in this false notion were nonetheless rational and reasonable, as the material world and the cosmos appeared to operate in a way such that the flat-earth, geocentric model of the universe followed naturally from the method of empirical analysis used. It wasn't until later in our evolution, when our tools and equipment for observing the heavens became more refined and complex, that we were to discern that a flat-earth, and geocentric model of the universe was grossly incorrect.
This reasoning may afforded to the religious, as well as the atheistic person. We generally trust our sensory input, or perceptual experience unless we have good reason to do otherwise, as in the case of illusions, because we have learned the usefulness of trusting our perceptual experience by the simple fact that (most of us) live and believe as though the objective world does actually exist, though it is impossible to prove that it does actually exist. With regard to those persons theistically-inclined, we may no more definitively conclude that the existence of God is true, and by this reasoning, afford such persons the same flexibility we grant ourselves in everyday,

-continued-

It is by this process that the theist interprets his sensory input to validate (at least for himself) his religious inclination, or his living in the presence of divinity. He interprets a particular experience as that of divine agency operating in the material world, while the naturalist does not - neither interpretation is at fault, save for fact a of the matter - that God either exists or doesn't. However, both interpretations of experience appear to coincide with reality in a way only perceptible to the individual concerned, yet there is always a possibility of delusion (as per Descartes), as well as the possibility that our perceptual and cognitive equipment is faulty or unreliable. As I mentioned before, this is the crux of the issue (at least at this point). Inasmuch, the question inevitably arises, 'is it wise to trust these experiences as veridical?' This is a puzzling question, but at least one consideration can be made that can help sort the veridical nature of our experiences from those of delusion and illusion.
Foremost, we must be perceptive to factors which would decrease the reliability of our cognitive faculties. For example, what has our psychologist or physician had to say about the present state of our health, mental or otherwise? Are we under any intoxicants or medications which wold dull, or distort our perceptual experience? How reliable are our perceptual faculties? This is crucial to consider, even as you have written that theism is tantamount to schizophrenia. If we can reasonably assure ourselves that our perceptual faculties are not faulty or impaired (this includes cognitive faculties as well, such as the faculty of judgment), we may conclude that the interpretation of our experience, as well as the formulation of beliefs on the basis of that experience, is rational as well as reasonable. Even if we are living in the Matrix, for all intents and purposes, it doesn't matter, as we would have no way of divorcing our minds from our perceptual experience to conclude that we were, in fact, living in the Matrix. As John Hick writes, “...we can adopt the general principle that in the absence of adequate grounds for doubt it is rational to trust our...experience of an external world that is apparently impinging on us.” It is through this rationale, that I make no war upon either religious or non-religious persons alike, as both types of persons are entitled to formulate their belief-systems based upon their experiences just as everyone else does.

In short, when you attack belief-systems, you are only serving to undermine the beliefs that you have adopted. It doesn't sound good when you make a call to arms to attack a valid philosophical perspective, yet write that 'it is all about perspective,' as indeed, in this case it is all about perspective. I am certain you will agree that the world would be a much better place if people would strive to eradicate their own intolerance for beliefs and perspectives that are incongruent with their interpretation of reality, rather than strive to persuade others to change their mind by anything other than reason and logic- to do otherwise is called Fascism or bullying; some people have tried that before, and it didn't work out so well.

Fourth, you are committing a hasty generalization as well as a slippery-slope fallacy when you write, "If we take some theists seriously then shouldn't we take all seriously? That would mean you would need to allow people to kill in the name of god." You seem to be alluding to certain examples of eccentric religious behavior, and adopting them as a general rule for the aggregate of religious behavior or theistic-inclination. This is similar someone saying, 'Some scientists formulated incorrect predictions based on flawed hypotheses, therefore, all scientific hypothesis must be flawed,' which is a silly proposition. The slippery slope comes about when you write that taking theism seriously would allow people to kill in the name of God. It is by the condoning of the act of murder that begets the act of murder, not by adopting the proposition that the universe was either created, or set into motion by an intelligent force. An example of the type of logic that you are using is found in the argument, 'if gay-marriage is made legal, then people will soon want to be able to marry their pet gold-fish.' Surely, you don't subscribe to that B.S. rhetoric?

Lastly, you made a statement down the thread akin to 'everyone has a right to believe what they want, but theists abuse that right.' This makes no logical sense. Theism is a belief, and you nonetheless assert that holding the belief that the universe was created by a supreme being is somehow in offense to the proposition that everyone has a right to believe what they want. WTF? I believe you are trying to formulate a generalized attack on organized religion, not on Theism, per se.

-continued-

I wish you all the best, and at last offer you some material which should afford you some insight into a topic that you appear to be extremely passionate about (if anything, it makes for some good late night kissing...I mean reading):

Arguments for Theism: www.infidels.org...
Arguments for Atheism: www.argumentsforatheism.com...
Descartes: oregonstate.edu...
Fallacies of Inductive Reasoning: www.nizkor.org...

-Yours,
Kissy
xox

It's very possible that the world will follow the errors of Russia and kill and lock away the religious. It's what we've been warned of at Fatima. So just wait a few more years and enjoy persecuting the religious, because when the chastisement comes you will soil yourself.

reply to post by WakeUpRiseUp


You said: "Theists have proven to be technically insane"...and..."Theists have a mental illness....."

Please provide specific examples and sources to prove the above statements that you have made. Thank you!

reply to post by 547000

It's very possible that the world will follow the errors of Russia and kill and lock away the religious.

I seriously don't think so and that it is more likely to be the opposite, where TPTB realize now, after such experiments as you mentioned (Soviet Union) shows the fallacy of removing religion and expecting people to have a learned allegiance to the state. They will now work towards going back to the Medieval feudal system for what makes the most stable system for the power elites and to protect themselves from things like what happened to France in the beginning of the nineteenth century.