Do theists have a God complex?
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
A Narcissistic personality disorder is incorrectly referred to the term God Complex, simply because the person in mention (with this disorder) is deemed as a personal mental disorder, rather than having a "complex" with God, or even thinking they were a god themselves. Unfortunately for you, this disorder has NOTHING to do with the individual and God, rather, it is their evident deficiencies and inadeqiecies in being able to seek gratification from others so they become inward and narcissistic. Again, nothing to do with God whatsoever. I believe the term "God Complex" is more correctly attributed to non-theistic people, whom would definately fall into the category of this disorder.
hmmm... how are the 'belief in God' and "narcissism" somehow connected again? Rememeber to bear in mind the actual disorder Enmos? YOU read it again and think about it very very carefully. Narcissism and God complexes does not equate to theistically inclined people. Like I said, this doesn't mean that a theist is not prone to being narcissistic alone as a "disorder".
No I'm not denying its reference to an atheistic narcissist though. To a theist, this term just makes no sense at all! LOL!
Why? I just explained to you 2 times why already. Can't you comprehend what has been written?
Let me elaborate another way:
There are many types of "complexes" associated with narcissism (since you want to discuss this);
there's for example, Messiah Complexes, where; the person thinks they are the Messiah. Then there's the Superiority Complex, where a person has inferiority issues. And then there's your God Complex, where the person becomes inward and self-centred, which is again... a personal issue... not one where a person is following God's teaching (which goes against all these traits/symptoms and behaviours). In essence, for a theist, it is a contradictory diagnosis to assume that the individual has some sort of problem/complex with God. If this was for an atheist, then the diagnosis and the symptoms shown to describe as a "God Complex" would fall true.
In conclusion, having the words "God" and "complex" together is missleading to attribute to a theist in this case.
So who was being narcissistic again? hmmm
SAM:
You have missed the point of this thread. No surprises there. This thread was started for one reason only: to point out the extreme silliness of your silly biased thread. Anyway, moving on...
I've said nothing about my respect or lack thereof for Iranian beliefs.
Which ones in particular (beliefs and Aborigines)? You do realise that indigenous Australians are not a homogeneous conglomerate, I hope.
ejderha:
Of course not. I only started this thread to point out the silliness of SAM's stupid claim that all atheists are intolerant by making a similar satirical claim about all theists.
The double-standards that some people seem to hold never cease to amaze me.
I didn't say anything about the entire Middle East. Nor did I even talk about fatal danger in Iran. I referred only to specific restrictions on women's freedoms in Iran and used them as evidence of a certain lack of tolerance of other beliefs. If you want to argue that point, maybe we can have a serious discussion of it in a different, serious, thread.
By the way, I'm not American. And if you want my opinion, ask for it. Don't assume.
Bizza:
Do you think it is equally stupid to think that a God complex is attributed to atheists alone? Because that's what SAM's silly thread is all about.
You do realise that I copied SAM's exact words, substituting only the word "theist" for "atheist"?
See the satire? Do you even understand the point I am making with this thread? I think not.
You have missed the point of this thread. No surprises there. This thread was started for one reason only: to point out the extreme silliness of your silly biased thread. Anyway, moving on...
I've said nothing about my respect or lack thereof for Iranian beliefs.
Which ones in particular (beliefs and Aborigines)? You do realise that indigenous Australians are not a homogeneous conglomerate, I hope.
ejderha:
Of course not. I only started this thread to point out the silliness of SAM's stupid claim that all atheists are intolerant by making a similar satirical claim about all theists.
The double-standards that some people seem to hold never cease to amaze me.
I didn't say anything about the entire Middle East. Nor did I even talk about fatal danger in Iran. I referred only to specific restrictions on women's freedoms in Iran and used them as evidence of a certain lack of tolerance of other beliefs. If you want to argue that point, maybe we can have a serious discussion of it in a different, serious, thread.
By the way, I'm not American. And if you want my opinion, ask for it. Don't assume.
Bizza:
Do you think it is equally stupid to think that a God complex is attributed to atheists alone? Because that's what SAM's silly thread is all about.
Bizza said:
You do realise that I copied SAM's exact words, substituting only the word "theist" for "atheist"?
See the satire? Do you even understand the point I am making with this thread? I think not.
I would like it if more people agreed with me, but I do not believe my beliefs should be forced upon you. Especially because majority (at least on this forum) disagrees with what I believe.
OK that's it, I'm calling sockpuppet. I can not believe Bizza is a real person. It's not SAM incognito either as Bizza is now paying out Muslims by himself looking like a fundamentalist jackoff.
blessed Prophets... puuleeease.
I'm going to make the call. A sockpuppet who ultimately wants to make Muslims look like tiny-brained neanderthals. Seen it before. Probably Vincent.
I would not say a non-atheist is a liar, insane or has an agenda. I would say a person claiming to be a Prophet is a liar, insane or has an agenda. A Prophet claims to hear voices in his or her head and know what Gods, Goddesses and Alien Overlords want. Funny enough they always seem to want something from other people - and ironically, need the "Prophet" to tell you exactly what that something is.
Which is just silly.
Non-Prophetic Religious people mostly just believe what they were taught to believe (or pretty close to it) and some try to figure out what they think this God/Alien really wants - which is where the trouble comes in - sometimes.
I think it's reasonable we rewrite much of the old religions into new religion. I mean, we (humans) made it up to begin with, I am sure we can make it up better now.
I've found myself, whenever arguing an atheistic point, labeled in that fashion - apparently simply by reflex - by quite a few theists on this forum. Especially (though not solely) by Muslims, btw - the quick resort to such labeling is almost characteristic of that particular theistic approach, and about two exchanges in I am often a liar, a Jew, a Republican, a spreader of malicious falsehood about Islam to further my imperialist agenda and express my bigotry, etc. Because there are so few Muslims on the forum, the pattern - quick resort to personal attack and disparagement of personal credibility - has been noticeable.SAM said:
On the other hand, surely you have noticed the common pattern of stealth evangelism by what turns out to be a fundie Christian, here - the disingenuous "innocent" question about evolution or Darwin or belief or some political issue framed in moral terms, by someone on a mission from their Bible college? The presence of a hidden agenda, a fundamental falsehood of self-presentation, is not as common among the missionary atheistic.
Personally I've seen that attitude myself in your posts, but there are many atheists here with whom I did not get the same feeling.
I do not see it as stealth evangelism myself. I've read several posts on evolution by creationists and it seems to me they would like to find an explanation that satisfies their theological beliefs, rather than attempt to convert others. Personally I have never felt that any creationist was trying to convert me. While I have definitely felt that almost every atheist was.
I think you are projecting here. What exactly would an atheist convert you to? Being rational?
Converting to intellectual honesty might do you some good. Give it a try sometime.
Apparently being intellectually honest means ditching your own beliefs for other peoples
The example I see of atheists "intellectual honesty" here is enough to create a strong physical and mental revulsion to atheism.
Ah, another definition from the dictionary of Sam.
Honesty revolts you, yes we already know that.
The reason is that you are confusing anti-theists with atheists.
Most atheists don't really give a damn about these issues. And so they don't spend time at Dawkins forums, or getting into flamewars with you here.
It's a lot like confusing militant fundamentalists with the whole of their co-religionists: something I'd thought you found unacceptable, at least when applied to your own metaphysical affiliations.
You could be excused for your confusion, to some extent, if it weren't so much a product of your own provocations in the first place. You go to great lengths to structure your interactions with atheists in a hostile, oppositional way, and so you necessarily see mostly angry anti-theists.
Which leaves the usual question: are you really that stupid, or do you just think the rest of us are?
Asking who?
No idea what you're referring to.
Sure I do. I just did.
On the other hand, you really don't get to dictate what I do and don't say or do.
tried to make this a private message Q, but your box is full so noone can send you private messages..
this is cut and paste from the rules specific to the religious forum(but can be applied to other forums.)
2. Personal comments
Posts which attack a person rather than his or her views will be edited to remove the unnecessary personal remarks.
Examples of acceptable posts include:
• You are wrong to say that Islam is a violent religion, because ...
• You obviously don't understand Christian beliefs, because ...
• Saying what you said clearly displays your ignorance of ...
Examples of unacceptable posts include:
• You are a stupid hater of Muslims, because you say Islam is violent.
• You're just another idiot who doesn't know anything about Christianity.
• Anybody who'd write what you wrote must have severe psychological problems.
3. Stereotyping and name-calling
Be careful of assigning character features to another poster because of his or her membership of a group (such as a particular religious belief system). It is acceptable to point out similarities between members of groups, but only as long as this is backed up by some kind of argument or evidence. Posts which resort to name-calling will be edited or deleted. Unacceptable posts include:
• Religious people like you are nothing more than blind followers of authority.
• All Jews want to rid the world of the Palestinian people.
• Muslims (like you) are mindless fools who don't believe in the real God.
4. Goading, flaming and trolling
Posts which, in the moderator's opinion, serve no purpose other than to attempt to provoke an angry reaction from another poster, will be deleted.
Blanket statements made about the beliefs and/or characteristics of members of a particular religion, if posted without supporting evidence which is not propaganda (as defined below), may be deleted.
It is not expected that members of one religious group or belief system will be friendly and receptive to contrary beliefs. However, this is not an excuse for the general disparagement of anybody who adheres to a belief system you personally find unpalatable or offensive. Posts that have the agenda of proclaiming one religion as better than another may be deleted.
At the end of the day, this is a science forum and the scientific perspective and the reasoned perspective will generally be the status quo. This doesn’t, however, mean it is acceptable to refer to members who are religious and express their religious opinions as “nutjobs,” “nutters,” nutbars,” or more serious verbiage such as “idiot,” “moron,” etc.
Posts and threads that are purely anti-science may be moderated.
this is cut and paste from the rules specific to the religious forum(but can be applied to other forums.)
2. Personal comments
Posts which attack a person rather than his or her views will be edited to remove the unnecessary personal remarks.
Examples of acceptable posts include:
• You are wrong to say that Islam is a violent religion, because ...
• You obviously don't understand Christian beliefs, because ...
• Saying what you said clearly displays your ignorance of ...
Examples of unacceptable posts include:
• You are a stupid hater of Muslims, because you say Islam is violent.
• You're just another idiot who doesn't know anything about Christianity.
• Anybody who'd write what you wrote must have severe psychological problems.
3. Stereotyping and name-calling
Be careful of assigning character features to another poster because of his or her membership of a group (such as a particular religious belief system). It is acceptable to point out similarities between members of groups, but only as long as this is backed up by some kind of argument or evidence. Posts which resort to name-calling will be edited or deleted. Unacceptable posts include:
• Religious people like you are nothing more than blind followers of authority.
• All Jews want to rid the world of the Palestinian people.
• Muslims (like you) are mindless fools who don't believe in the real God.
4. Goading, flaming and trolling
Posts which, in the moderator's opinion, serve no purpose other than to attempt to provoke an angry reaction from another poster, will be deleted.
Blanket statements made about the beliefs and/or characteristics of members of a particular religion, if posted without supporting evidence which is not propaganda (as defined below), may be deleted.
It is not expected that members of one religious group or belief system will be friendly and receptive to contrary beliefs. However, this is not an excuse for the general disparagement of anybody who adheres to a belief system you personally find unpalatable or offensive. Posts that have the agenda of proclaiming one religion as better than another may be deleted.
At the end of the day, this is a science forum and the scientific perspective and the reasoned perspective will generally be the status quo. This doesn’t, however, mean it is acceptable to refer to members who are religious and express their religious opinions as “nutjobs,” “nutters,” nutbars,” or more serious verbiage such as “idiot,” “moron,” etc.
Posts and threads that are purely anti-science may be moderated.