It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by BlueMule
So you are conceding that you can't refute the medical and psychological data on this too?
Nice talking with you.
Look at it. The "proof" is that if you take one God and add the "nothingness" of the universe before it was created, that equals adding 1 and 0, resulting in 1 (The original God). If that is your strongest argument against God then you may as well claim you're an emotional Atheist, because there is no reason behind the belief.
Problem #1 You've heard of comparing "Apples to Oranges." Comparing God to absolute nothingness is infinitely worse. It's like adding an explosion to the inside of a bubble and deciding it doesn't add up to 2.
Problem #2 God is infinite, the nothingness was infinite. Math gets weird when you start playing with infinities.
Problem #3 The math is only window dressing, it's just putting an Atheist claim in a different language. It's simply claiming that God cannot create. That's not proof, it's just a restatement. How in the world do you know that God, who goes by the alias of "The Creator," can't create?
The "proof" is not a proof. It is simply an argument which does not stand up. What I was hoping for when you said "proof" was something like.
"No being can create something out of nothing.
God is a being.
Therefore God can not create something out of nothing."
That, at least, is an argument. Very weak, invalid, and misleading, and certainly not a proof, but at least it would have been a start.
How do you know He can't do both? This is God we're talking about, He's outside of time. That's not a proof God doesn't exist.
Now that you've recovered from your laughing fit, may I present the second proof? God has to be able to change the future, and to know the future. Since He can't do both, He doesn't exist. (A vulgar barnyard term comes to mind.)
So he begins by assuming Christianity is insanity. What credibility does anything in that video have after that? Besides, I answered that statement by saying:
I want to start with an obvious point. If there was just one Christian we would all think that he was crazy. Not just crazy, but completely f------ insane.
The argument for defining religion as a mental disorder seems to be as follows:
God is imaginary,
People who believe (or hear, or talk with) imaginary beings are "Nuts," (To use the correct clinical term.)
People who believe in God, therefore, are nuts.
If you are applying reason and common experience, you will see that both of the premises can be questioned, therefore the conclusion can be questioned.
The claim is made "God is imaginary." OK, prove it. Since you can't, it's a little questionable to use that as your major premise.
The minor premise is also shaky. Two days ago, I saw a creature that was kind of yellowish-beige, shaped a little like a barrel, walking on two legs, having four legs coming out of it's torso. I couldn't see it's head, but it was coming towards me about the same speed I can run. I will swear on anything holy that this is true. Does it matter that it occurred in a dream? I truly believed in that imaginary creature, and if you'll give me a minute, I'll find a copy of my sanity certificate.
So anyone who says Religion is a mental illness has shown themselves to be people who have trouble constructing a logical argument. Is that a mental illness?
Humans spend most of their time abstract thinking,. Look around you, EVERYTHING was abstractly created first and then we made it or proved it. You can't even make your breakfast without first creating it in your mind.
So, why is religion out of the norm for how our brains work? We think of questions within out brains that we want answers to and then we abstractly crate those answers that may or may not be correct.
I would be surprised if we didn't have religion. We would most likely not have science or math too and be living like our chimp cousins. Just because it is a big question to answer and people have faith that the answer is correct doesn't make it any different than a scientist trying to answer a much smaller question that started as a thought.
reply to post by wildtimes
Imposing a bunch of superstitious, antique dogma on a small child and instilling fear and self-loathing are abusive. You know that.
It would be kinder to a child to lock them in a room of
hungry cockroaches than to teach them hate, fear and
self-loathing like is done.
What grinds my biscuits, or frosts my gears, is the person without honor, the knave, the villain, the cheat, the liar, the coward. That, far more than any attacks on my religion or politics, shuts down my amygdala. Against this person I react emotionally. People can insult others with the vilest names and accusations, under the impression that it's true, but when they learn that they have no reason to believe it's true, the honorable man has only one choice. He must, to remain an honorable man, withdraw the insult and apologize.
The Argument from Change
The Argument from Efficient Causality
The Argument from Time and Contingency
The Argument from Degrees of Perfection
The Design Argument
The Kalam Argument
The Argument from Contingency
The Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole
The Argument from Miracles
The Argument from Consciousness
The Argument from Truth
The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God
The Ontological Argument
The Moral Argument
The Argument from Conscience
The Argument from Desire
The Argument from Aesthetic Experience
The Argument from Religious Experience
The Common Consent Argument
The other difficulty I have is the expansive definition used for "Abuse" and "Trauma." Telling a child that God exists and that He loves him, is trauma only by the definition of a very warped dictionary indeed.
We know that children
who experience the stress of abuse will
focus their brains’ resources on survival and
responding to threats in their environment.
This chronic stimulation of the brain’s fear
response means that the regions of the
brain involved in this response are frequently
activated (Perry, 2001a). Other regions of
the brain, such as those involved in complex
thought and abstract cognition, are less
frequently activated, and the child becomes
less competent at processing this type of
One way that early maltreatment experiences
may alter a child’s ability to interact positively
with others is by altering brain neurochemical
balance. Research on children who suffered
early emotional abuse or severe deprivation
indicates that such maltreatment may
permanently alter the brain’s ability to use
serotonin, which helps produce feelings of
well-being and emotional stability (Healy,
Altered brain development in children who
have been maltreated may be the result
of their brains adapting to their negative
environment. If a child lives in a threatening,
chaotic world, the child’s brain may be
hyperalert for danger because survival may
depend on it. But if this environment persists,
and the child’s brain is focused on developing
and strengthening its strategies for survival,
other strategies may not develop as fully.
The result may be a child who has difficulty
functioning when presented with a world of
kindness, nurturing, and stimulation.
In this article, we examine cases of religion-related child abuse reported to mental health professionals nationwide.
Religion provides specific directives for positive moral action and the promotion of
human welfare. It may be difficult to realize, then, that religious beliefs can also foster,
encourage, and justify abusive behavior. The myriad connections between religion and child
abuse led Donald Capps, a past president of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion,
to entitle his presidential address, "Religion and Child Abuse, Perfect Together."
Although religious himself, Capps (1992) sorrowfully traced the indisputable connection between
traditional religion and violence against children. Similar points have been made by Capps
(1995), Straus (1994), Pagelow and Johnson (1988), and by Greven (1991) in his sobering
book Spare the Child: The Religious Roots of Punishment and the Psychological Impact of Physical Abuse. **
In this paper, we explore the complex role of religion in child abuse cases reported
retrospectively by young adults in a survey. We sought to understand the nature,
circumstances, and emotional, psychological, and spiritual outcomes of religion-related
physical abuse as compared to other physical abuses.
He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. These words provided generations of American Christians with the justification for physically disciplining their children, in ways that range from spankings to brutal beatings. This learned and deeply disturbing work of history examines both the religious roots of corporal punishment in America and its consequences -- in the minds of children, in adults, and in our national tendencies toward authoritarian and apocalyptic thinking. Drawing on sources as old as Cotton Mather and as current as today's headlines, Spare the Child is one of those rare works of scholarship that have the power to change our lives.
This is a richly researched, acutely unsettling study of corporal punishment in the United States. It focuses on the "Christian" use of Biblical texts to justify corporal punishment and its destructive legacy in our culture. Greven's insightful scholarship traces rationales for parental brutality through generations of religious apocalyptic thinking. His forceful argument takes the issue of physical discipline from the realm of parental rights and tradition and makes finding an alternative a moral responsibility.
From Publishers Weekly
Greven marshalls a wealth of clinical evidence to show that beatings and spankings administered in childhood have long-lasting harmful consequences, including suppressed anger, self-hatred, recurring depressions, apathy, and stifling of compassion for oneself and others. A Rutgers history professor who teaches courses on the family, Greven maintains that the violence against children endemic in our society contributes to adults' unquestioning obedience to authority and to the oppression of women. He traces support for physical punishment to the Protestant belief that use of the rod is necessary to break the child's will; he also briefly outlines nonviolent alternatives to corporal punishment. Although this is more sociological treatise than childrearing guide, parents will benefit from this wise and liberating book.
Religion has caused violence and war and on the other hand Hitler and Stalin weren't big on religion.
Religion in and of itself is not a mental disorder, no.
reply to post by Eryiedes
I can say exactly the same thing back to you about your statement. Hitler and Stalin are the greatest mass murderers in human history.