OK Lori, make a poll, and see who believes that you really do talk to God, for real.
Theory; Religion Will Die Away With Science and Evolution
- Thread starter Anarcho Union
- Start date
OK Lori, make a poll, and see who believes that you really do talk to God, for real.
Psychosis is real to the person suffering from it.
I guess in some people's books, "sweet tea" is an accomplished author and "the southern skeptic fairy" is high brow literature ...
why would i do that when i just said i don't care?
Well it beats "Magic jewish zombie who is his own father"
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
An important thing to note about ancient intellectual life is that it wasn't really divided up into different disciplines, into distinct fields of study. Religion wasn't distinct from the rest of knowledge, thought and action. The ancients simply recognized what they would probably call 'wisdom'. It derived from and was justified by whatever their culture conceived as the highest principles, the gods or whatever. So it looks to us like religion, I guess. But it encompassed all the rest of life as well, from political organization to their understanding of the natural world. It was all one big seamless whole to them, all aspects of the same principles at work.
I think that historically, philosophy was the first to break away and, in Greece at least, to set out on a career of secularized intellectual inquiry. The new philosophical thought wasn't automatically based on and justified by whatever the traditional myths were about the highest powers in the universe. Greek philosophy originated in Ionian merchant circles that traveled the Mediterranean and the near east, and were aware of the wide variety of very different religious beliefs from place to place. So skepticism about the literal truth of myth in general started to appear. Thinkers were motivated to begin their inquiries anew, with their real life observations, and then try to ascend to what the highest principles truly were through use of their own intellects.
Science in turn originated as natural philosophy, the field of philosophy concerned with understanding the principles of the natural world. As natural philosophy grew, it gradually acquired its own vocabulary, concepts, problems, techniques, specialists and institutions. In the 17'th century it broke off from philosophy entirely and become a separate set of intellectual disciplines called 'science'.
I'm not sure that the changes have been that large among the general public. I mean, even the ancients were pretty secular. In a way at least. They were farmers, masons, blacksmiths, soldiers or kings. Most of their attention was directed to the pursuits of their daily lives and for many of them, attendence at temple festivals was kind of a formality. In ancient times weekends were unknown, people worked every day, and their only days off were "holy days" (holidays). So the religious festivals were often simultaneously feasts, carnivals, days of relaxation and good times for all. (Of course in another way, these ancients weren't secular at all, since all aspects of life were understood in at least semi-religious terms.)
I don't believe that cultural or biological evolution are really "progressive" in quite that way. History isn't an automatic progression from 'lower' to 'higher'. It's more a matter of adaptation to changing conditions and temporary states of homeostasis.
We often see examples of what I would consider retrogression in history. The collapse of ancient classical civilization was one such moment. The growing other-worldliness and virtual worship of ancient authors and texts that we see in late antiquity (both Pagan and Christian). The "dark ages" in the West and the rise of Islam which kind of froze some of this period's more primitive attitudes into cultural stone. India's decline and China's increasingly disfunctional cultured antiquarianism.
Comment on the substance instead of disregarding the article because you don't like the author.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
What many feel is your misguided thinking about talking to God is painful to them. A poll offers them some hope that you might be persauded to view things differently. Your refusal to do so tramples on their feelings. This demonstrates that, contrary to your claim, you lack empathy.
Indeed. I perfer the term anarchist or anarchist communist myself
I like the idea! So you're familiar with Noam Chomsky of course 
I like the idea! So you're familiar with Noam Chomsky of course
Of course! His writtings are inspiring and so true
PM sent
that's the point
you have no substance!!
If you want to suggest that to be religious is to have a mental disease do the hard yards and don't simply reference some other equally anonymous hot headed unfounded tripe.
that you're what?
and some people do believe me, you're just not one of them, and i don't care. that isn't how it works anyway. the way it works is, god helps me, so i can help others. i don't have to say a thing about god, or god's communication with me. all i have to do is let power manifest, and it does.
I will repeat my post then. There are 7 similarities that some nobody off a random webpage found between religion and mental illness. You seem to avoid commenting on it as if you're afraid you can't refute them. Instead you use argumentum ad hominem to dismiss these points. I guess that's the christian way :shrug:
Here are the seven similarities. If they are so easy to refute, I think you should give it a shot.
painful to them how, and why?
how would my perspective be anymore painful for them than theirs is for me? which it's not painful for me btw.
and in regards to empathy, if god helps me understand myself (which god does) and that allows me to understand others, then my interaction with god fosters empathy.
also, how is problem solving with god anymore alienating than problem solving with a psychologist? if i had a problem, and consulted a psychologist, and with their help i solved that problem by learning about myself, understanding myself, and perhaps undergoing a new perspective or some positive conditioning, when i see someone else suffering from the same problem am i less empathetic or more empathetic? if i had already experienced the problem and worked to solve it by understanding it, i may understand more about what's going on with that person than they themselves do. that's why people go to psychologists! now i know that circumstances vary from person to person, but imo the root of people's problems isn't all that different.
at worst, you are uninformed about what constitutes mental illness (ie you can't find a mental health or scientific professional who will spout such nonsense, even if they are atheist - that's why dawkins goes on about memes - which are also another type of nonsense, albeit one of a lesser standard) and at best you are begging the question (ie since god doesn't exist according to the atheistic value system, persons who attribute events to an interventionist god are insane") ... which gets back to the irony of you promoting the push towards so called rational though at the hands of so called science while getting all woo woo about religion.
Hence if you want to suggest that to be religious is to have a mental disease do the hard yards and don't simply reference some other equally anonymous hot headed unfounded tripe.
Last edited: