Those who hear the voice of god in their heads are delusional.
- Thread starter Medicine*Woman
- Start date
Some of the most important events in history have been influenced by an encounter with the 'almighty'... As crazy as it certainly sounds - it's a recurring theme throughout history. Some of these delusional people went on to change the world.
In order to better understand the phenomona you must be able to look around in the shoes of a Christian. With my Christian experience, we were tought (me having roots in catholic schools) that god was able to communicate with us. We were tought to ask god for direction in life, for forgiveness, for anything - now by your logic would that not make me, and everyone who practices some form of prayer insane? Are they not talking to something that does not exist? The Christian church is heavily based on the direct influence of god onto man. Of course, the means of communication is where it gets sketchy at best.
The fact of the matter is that god exists, as long as there is someone to believe in the idea. God exists, and is real to that person.
It wouldn't hurt to see some tolerance either.
EDIT: To imaplanck
Good job mate. Even though your assumption is dead wrong - thanks for correcting my spelling.
In order to better understand the phenomona you must be able to look around in the shoes of a Christian. With my Christian experience, we were tought (me having roots in catholic schools) that god was able to communicate with us. We were tought to ask god for direction in life, for forgiveness, for anything - now by your logic would that not make me, and everyone who practices some form of prayer insane? Are they not talking to something that does not exist? The Christian church is heavily based on the direct influence of god onto man. Of course, the means of communication is where it gets sketchy at best.
The fact of the matter is that god exists, as long as there is someone to believe in the idea. God exists, and is real to that person.
It wouldn't hurt to see some tolerance either.
EDIT: To imaplanck
Good job mate. Even though your assumption is dead wrong - thanks for correcting my spelling.
Just so you know, schizophrenia is not the only mental condition which would be comparable to the religious hearing the voice of God.
In fact, it's not even the most likely.
Left temporal lobe epilepsy is a much more likely culprit. It has a wide array of symptoms which fit the bill rather nicely. Many religious and mystic types have been diagnosed with it. And many more conjectured to have had it.
For reference, in The Exorcism of Emily Rose, Emily suffered from left temporal lobe epilepsy. Of course, the condition was made little of in the movie itself but the movie was poorly done all the way around, in my opinion. Completely intended to be interpreted spiritually while maintaining a pretense of 'letting the viewer decide...'
In fact, it's not even the most likely.
Left temporal lobe epilepsy is a much more likely culprit. It has a wide array of symptoms which fit the bill rather nicely. Many religious and mystic types have been diagnosed with it. And many more conjectured to have had it.
For reference, in The Exorcism of Emily Rose, Emily suffered from left temporal lobe epilepsy. Of course, the condition was made little of in the movie itself but the movie was poorly done all the way around, in my opinion. Completely intended to be interpreted spiritually while maintaining a pretense of 'letting the viewer decide...'
It is subjective! even atheist can loose their minds! and hear the voice of Madalyn Murray O'Hair if they become schizophrenic!
you miss the point
If god actually exists (of course I am just asking you to accept this conceptually), is there any reason that would prevent him from speaking to someone (you know, he is apparently rumoured to be omnipresent, omniscient etc).
In other word rather than declaring quite circularly, "Anyone who claims god speaks to them is insane since god obviously doesn't exist" (which requires a proof of evidence for the bit in bold), your argument could be helped if you could assert what is the intrinsic problem god has that prevents him from speaking to a person (of course you can say "He doesn't exist" - but that would require a proof of evidence on your side)
Balls to that. There's no predetermination to random end-forms.
Conceptually; why would the most significant, superior being in the universe want to talk to a mere, mortal insignificant to it's stature?
Objectively: since you don't have any evidence for such a being to exist, why waste my time worshiping, praying, and reading rhetorical ancient astro-theology mythology?
It's your choice to believe, in whatever the hell you want, however, it's also our choice to demand emperical evidence of your claims, when it involves objective reality!
Hence this is a subforum in a scientific forum discusing the myths of religion, not just christianity, but all religions, which have dominated every aspect of humanity, from ancient past till today! Is there any truth in the rhetoric of ancient myths! NO!
Kings don't usually talk to street sweepers, but it has been known to occur
the evidence lies in meeting certain standards of perception - just like there are certain standards of perception required for the validation of an electron outside of inductive knowledge
which leads to the problem of how one could apply an empirical process (which cannot technically surmount the senses) to see what one is seeing with - in short it is just like the demand of being taught how to swim without getting wet
given that it is impossible for empiricism to leave the realms of ignorance (the unknown will always be a concommitant factor for the progress of empiricism), you cannot say "No" with resounding confidence
Kings were not mythical entities of ancient humans, we actually have evidence/proof that kings existed!
DELUSIONS!
Non-sequirtus drible again Lg! The emperical evidence of water, is evident, the claimed hypothesis of a supreme entity is not!
WTF are you still in the cave?
Empiricism of our natural laws of physics, has provided you with the electricity to run that damn computer of yours, it has also taken you out of the cave, I hope! and an automobile, and any materialistic object that makes life better for living, unless you would like to live in a cave and wipe your a*ss with poison ivy, empiricism has served your ass well!!!
Neither can you! since I make no godamn claims of any supernaturalism existing, the burden of this is on you! the claimant. Not the one who asks for you to back up your claims.
And again, with the "certain types of perception" WTF is that? delusional, schizophrenic, spiritualists who talks to ghosts? REALLY what the hell do you mean with (certain perceptions)?
Godless
“
I thought it was cleared by the earlier post that we were talking about the concept of god, as opposed to "you are wrong because you are wrong" argument.
You established the general princple that there was something intrinsically erronous with the notion of a higher entity being inclined to communicate with a lower one.
I indicated that was wrong with the eg of the king and the street sweeper
claiming that a transcendental object must exist at the mercy of empiricism (ie the gross senses) is like saying one must be able to swim without getting in the water (inother words just as swimming implies getting wet, perceiving god - a transcendental object - implies the redundancy of emprical means of investigation)
but once again, seems you have missed the point - empiricism (which of course is based on what our senses, sight, touch etc, tell us of the world) is surrounded by mystery if you take it far enough - like if you examine the micro world we reach things become gradually more and more uncertain until a point is reached where we don't have a clue and if you take it macro you get the same result. So to examine that delightful topic of electricity, if you take it micro enough you end up with electrons and quantum/string theory and if youtake it macro enough it is difficult for us to trace the absolute cause of electricity (since it innvolves speculations about the origin of the universe)
In other words by my statement, "it is impossible for empiricism to leave the realm of ignorance.", I mean that empiricism is not capable of coming to a point where there will remain nothing more to know, simply due to the limitations of its authority (ie the senses)
So the question is there, what are the certain requirements necessary for spiritual advancement? Renunciation? Scriptural recall? Charity? Morality? Penance? Austerity? Wealth? Fame? Or something else?
(I'll give you a hint, its not culturing an animosity driven doubt that will balk no further than the demand that god reveal himself to a person who derides the very notion of subservience and surrender)
“
my mistake.
I thought it was cleared by the earlier post that we were talking about the concept of god, as opposed to "you are wrong because you are wrong" argument.
You established the general princple that there was something intrinsically erronous with the notion of a higher entity being inclined to communicate with a lower one.
I indicated that was wrong with the eg of the king and the street sweeper
then maybe you can establish how one can perceive any type of evidence without coming to a standard of perception/education
once again, seems you missed the point
claiming that a transcendental object must exist at the mercy of empiricism (ie the gross senses) is like saying one must be able to swim without getting in the water (inother words just as swimming implies getting wet, perceiving god - a transcendental object - implies the redundancy of emprical means of investigation)
mildly humurous
but once again, seems you have missed the point - empiricism (which of course is based on what our senses, sight, touch etc, tell us of the world) is surrounded by mystery if you take it far enough - like if you examine the micro world we reach things become gradually more and more uncertain until a point is reached where we don't have a clue and if you take it macro you get the same result. So to examine that delightful topic of electricity, if you take it micro enough you end up with electrons and quantum/string theory and if youtake it macro enough it is difficult for us to trace the absolute cause of electricity (since it innvolves speculations about the origin of the universe)
In other words by my statement, "it is impossible for empiricism to leave the realm of ignorance.", I mean that empiricism is not capable of coming to a point where there will remain nothing more to know, simply due to the limitations of its authority (ie the senses)
well I am making claims of a transcendent reality - you are making claims that everything, including transcendent realities, must come within the purview of empiricism - this is a little strange since for a transcendentreality to meet your criteris for evidence, it would not be 'transcendent', hence my insistence that you lack the requirements for certain perceptions (beginning with a theoretical base)
in short, it means that perception is based on meeting certain requirements - like for instance it would be very difficult for a doctor to lay claims to understanding how to perform heart surgery if he didn't know where the heart was located.
So the question is there, what are the certain requirements necessary for spiritual advancement? Renunciation? Scriptural recall? Charity? Morality? Penance? Austerity? Wealth? Fame? Or something else?
(I'll give you a hint, its not culturing an animosity driven doubt that will balk no further than the demand that god reveal himself to a person who derides the very notion of subservience and surrender)
Dont give me that impertinent biologist bullshit. Im not talking about predetermination of bellends. Im saying that once organisms began to replicate , given competition for finite resources evolution was inevitable.
Last edited:
You're welcome.
Its funny how so many that tout the christian way these days, are not actually christians .