Is it "insane" to talk to imaginary people? How about "talking to 'God'"?

First off, we need to stop using the terms "crazy", "insane", "mentally unstable" etc.

Should be clear by now that there is an effort to label the masses as "crazy". Whats the motivation? Big Pharma trying to sell more psychotropic drugs. Government using it as a means to silence opposition (Truthers for example) and to strip people of their rights (Second Amendment).

But for the purposes of this thread, lets say that a person who hears voices is "insane". That if that same person were to communicate with an imaginary being, he or she would be considered crazy.

Now lets discuss in the context of religion.

Help me to understand how this is different when someone talks to "God". Even if someone believes in "God", obviously, theres no one there. Many claim that "God" even replies...

I'm asking a general question but I would like to use the following example.

Bush: God told me to invade Iraq.

In any other context, if someone were to hear voices telling them to commit acts of violence (let alone attacking an entire nation), they would be jailed and or committed...

Atheists.. won't be happy till everyone gives up their faith..

Religious folks.. won't be happy till everyone is converted...


Why can't they co-exist and live together on this planet? Why must it be one or the other? Set the example and tolerate other people.


Also, to answer your question, yes GWBush is insane.

reply to post by gladtobehere


I do not believe that God told Bush to invade Iraq (maybe it was Cheney throwing his voice from an air duct in the ceiling, lol,) but unless you have evidence that proves that "God is an imaginary being," your comparison is not valid.

It's human nature to enforce your will on others. Many will deny it, but it's self evident to one degree or another.
The day when humanity can coexist peacefully is the day when there are no more people.

I believe the voice I hear in my dreams at night is God. It has nothing to do with faith, it's real.

Others choose to believe Gods' thoughts are best represented by a book that has been interpreted and re-written by various men 50 different times and in 6 different languages. You tell me-- who's crazy?

reply to post by introV


Atheist don't care about your religion. Atheist just doesn't want your religion to affect their laws and lives.. like it has for 100s of years.


*your = general*

reply to post by adjensen

but unless you have evidence that proves that "God is an imaginary being," your comparison is not valid.

Yeah, ok... you make up something, and we have to prove it doesn't exist?

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by adjensen

 

but unless you have evidence that proves that "God is an imaginary being," your comparison is not valid.

Yeah, ok... you make up something, and we have to prove it doesn't exist?

Who says I made something up? Do you think that the act of believing in something causes it to come into existence?

If you wish to positively aver that God does not exist, as opposed to the usual atheist position of "I have no belief in deities," then, yes, you need to provide evidence to back up that claim.

reply to post by adjensen


Right, sorry, you didn't make it up, you just believe in someone else's imaginary friend that they made to control the stupid masses 3000 or even 5000-6000 years ago. You must be a very gullible person not to question things.

(this goes to show, does god wants a sheep or does god wants someone who questions him?)

Its a win:win for atheist!

I have no belief in deity, and i do not believe in your deity unless you have given me enough proof that it does exist. It does not have to be physical appearances, just ask your god to make the sky go green for 2 secs at 5:00pm EST tomorrow.

This way, you will have more believers, without uttering a single word. God is so stupid, it/they wants people but doesn't have any ideas.on how to make people believe in it/them.

If it did exist, its long gone and dead.

I think worse than hearing someones voice in my head would be for people to hear my voice in their head. That would be insane.

reply to post by gladtobehere


I read a neuroscience study on the effects of theists estimating the views of their god concerning important social and ethical topics a while back. It showed that they are really estimating the views of their own ego. So when George Bush said God told him to invade Iraq, it's likely it was in his best interest.

Talking to God is synonymous with talking to yourself or to an unreliable imaginary friend.

reply to post by luciddream


Setting aside the insults, the answer is "no", you have no evidence that "God is an imaginary being", apart from your own belief that that is the case. My point about the OP stands, then -- it is an invalid comparison.

reply to post by adjensen


Sorry, the insults were not directed at you. It was directly at the unquestioning religious masses.

You still say i have no evidence? why is the burden on me? are babies born with a belief in a deity?

reply to post by luciddream


Nope they are not, they are told what to believe and in many cases forced to believe it, to me this is abuse..no child should have any religion forced upon them they should be able to make up their own minds without anybody telling them their club is the way to God.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by adjensen

 

Sorry, the insults were not directed at you. It was directly at the unquestioning religious masses.

You still say i have no evidence? why is the burden on me? are babies born with a belief in a deity?

He's already made the distinction. If you are saying "I have no belief in deities", then there is no need for evidence of anything. If, however, you are insisting others believe there are no deities, you need proof.

There's a difference between "lack of belief" and "belief in a lack".

reply to post by gladtobehere

Is it considered insane to speak to people who have passed away? They were alive in our physical form at one point in time. I still talk to my grandfather from time to time. I do not necessarily expect a response, but it is human nature to speak comfort into someone and have so done to them. Purely psychological healing and comforting. To desire comfort and communication is not a sin. We do it with our elders, parents, friends, children, pets, and yes our faith, imaginary friends, and even our enemies. It is quite endearing in some instances and a symbol of empathy, compassion, and bonding. Try to think of our faith as an extension of a prior relationship that has resulted in a spiritual separation that induces a longing and desire to communicate and be comforted, to share one's happiness and joys, and relay one's sadness and sorrows. We do this far more than we are willing to admit and even notice. Stigma's associated with talking to one's self are of fearful misunderstandings of the observed person exhibiting such communication. Now, if you have chosen to listen to demons or are subjected to forced communication with evil entities, people will fear you and the entity you identify. Plus, there are mental diseases, or at least that is what we call them, that involve split/multiple personalities. However, even within those cases, not all voices are evil, rather separate projections of struggling ego identities and ideals. This is common with traumatized individuals who embrace such communications in an attempt to form identities that can best cope with any situation, an internalized support group of sorts, capable of defending the subconscious host. That is what we improperly call "crazy" or "insane" or "childish". We must discourage these independent judgments of our own volition, for we truly have no business throwing stones or identifying something we have never experienced. People are not crazy, they are fragile and subject to fantastic imaginations, which can be positive and inspiring, or negative and destructive. We are all capable of this and at any moment can be stripped of our securities both physically and mentally that would lead us to develop coping mechanisms designed for preservation and self-defense. Talking to God, whether He exists or not, is not in and of itself problematic, but the judgment that one's peers or authorities render may indeed force a human to reject their social conforms and seek an alternative support mechanism.

reply to post by Nacirema

So when George Bush said God told him to invade Iraq, it's likely it was in his best interest.

Even the Muslims will tell you that the invasion of Iraq was all predicted in the Qu'ran.

Regardless of where it came from, it was all a part of God's plan to complete the prophecies that have been written about the Middle East and Jerusalem/Israel in particular, written in both the Bible and the Qu'ran. The only difference between the two is who wins in the end.

I think Bush said that to get the Christian Right's approval. He needed it for votes and especially money to start wars. Thats about as inhumane as it gets. Bushes god is himself.

reply to post by boymonkey74

Nope they are not, they are told what to believe and in many cases forced to believe it, to me this is abuse..no child should have any religion forced upon them they should be able to make up their own minds without anybody telling them their club is the way to God.

Excellent post. In my opinion thats how people become deeply committed to church, they are trained from a young age to go over and over. Imagine going to the same movie every weekend for the rest of your life.

True freedom is seeing the silliness of that. And thats why the "faithful" have to keep going. They have been conditioned from early on to practice ritualized traditions and never stop (or else).

there is nothing wrong in talking to yourself its when you get a answer START WORRING .

having schizophrenia you are never alone untill the meds kick in