We all know the onus is on the claimant to prove his/her claim if they are stating it as fact. Can it be proven, as it would be in a court of law, that the religious on the hubpages forums are insane?
Insane is harsh word...I dont think religious people are insane...Too much dependent of big daddy somewhere outhere ,might be...Too much self doubting and needing external support, might be...Too much hopeful and carving for identity to remain intact forever , even after death , might be...
1. legally considered as psychiatrically disordered: considered legally incompetent or irresponsible because of a psychiatric disorder
2. lacking reasonable thought
delusion (plural de·lu·sions) noun 1. false belief: a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of a psychiatric condition
belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof
Does the religious got faith?
Now you decide!
No insane person ever admit she is insane!
I am insane, by YOUR criterion, YOU are insane, by MY criteria.
whos john?...anyways whosoever he is , he has a point...for every insane person , world is definitely insane...
What may appear insane may be a calculated move by the people that people think whose actions are insane.
Thanks for admitting, but that is not my criteria, its encarta definition.
OK, lets be more specific, I am insane by the definition the WORLD places on the word, which you accept as your opinion when you put it forward as part of the inane argument you present.
On the other hand, by any believers understanding, your refusal to even examine what we have experienced is insanity, in KINGDOM terms.
Let's face it, there is no resolve between believers and secularists.
'Kingdom' another of the illogical beliefs.
If you are Experiencing too much 'ghost', its better you see a psychiatrist. Very few believers ever 'hear voices' or 'experience spirit', to be truly delusional, they just believe their parents and authorities.
AS (John), you're not insane...some appear to be though ....
Lol. no wonder the 20% think they as mentally ill. Mainly people are a big bag of nerves, and when some of you are ready to be honest, come to an veteran artist like me , we are leader in the nerve system. Don't go to quack, they have high mortgage's to pay for.
From the definitions you provide, there would seem to be a strong connection between faith producing delusions which then becomes insane. Not a perfect fit, but at least a loose one.
On the other hand we are ALL delusional (how many have exclaimed how beautiful a newborn is, all wrinkled, maybe covered in blood, hairless, etc.) - it is a matter of degree, then, and the faithful would not seem to reach the required degree to be truly insane.
1. legally considered as psychiatrically disordered: considered legally
Let's go through what Jomine said that you probably think the religious have are loosely attached to psychosis:
What would be considered insanity in a court of law regarding some of the points I think you meant religious people are loosely based?
"2. lacking reasonable thought"
This on it's own would never constitute insanity. Say you believe in Jesus in court and plead insanity on that, everyone in the courthouse would peel with laughter.
"delusion (plural de·lu·sions) noun 1. false belief: a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of a psychiatric condition"
There is no concrete proof that a person who believes in God is holding a false belief. The onus is one the claimant to prove God cannot possibly exist based on reason. For example, is it possible that a divine force sparked the Big Bang since things that come into existence, like all matter that ensued from it, have got to have something already existing to make something else to come into existence?
belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof
Does the religious got faith?"
If a child believes in the boogie man is he or she psychotic? The child is gullible because they trust their parents. A religious person may believe in God with logical proof because they were brought up to believe. That is not insanity.
There are premises that need to be met not just one or two. Is there any psychiatrist who would diagnose his patients as psychotic because they believe in God? Is there a court of law that would deem someone insane because of religious beliefs on its own?
That's not a rhetorical question.
The person who says he believes in jesus, only means he believe the words of bible are true. let the person say in court he is guided daily by the "experience" of jesus or let him say he experience jesus/spirit or say the word leaders are satanists. If he mean it literally, nobody will laugh but sent him to asylum.
Anybody who use reason can easily show there is no god. But people are not bothered, they just believe what is told to them by their parents(or similar figure), that is , they have trust in the person who said it, that they have confidence in the statement. In other words people never apply reason.
faith= without proof
Delusion= belief, despite strong contradictory evidence
There is no contradictory evidence which dispels most religions, hence faith usually has nothing to do with delusion.
Absolutely insane. define sanity and try to apply it to any one person... It can't be done.
A court of law can deem someone insane if they cannot know the difference between right and wrong.
The M'Naghten test defines insanity as the complete inability to distinguish right from wrong. Criminal intent doesn't exist if the judge or jury finds the defendant could not tell the difference between right and wrong.
If a religious person can tell the difference between right and wrong, they are not insane. Not even a psychopath is insane as they do know the difference between right and wrong.
The medical term equivalent to insanity is psychosis and that is defined as:
"A severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality."
Anders Breivik who killed those young people on Latoya Island in Norway even wasn't diagnosed with insanity because he knew the wrongness of his act.
I don't think insane is the right word. But for certain, many if not all of traditionally religious people are suffering from some form of psychological (and not psychiatric) malfunction.
Some of them? Probably. All of them? No.
Note that my answer relies on statistical likelihood, apportioning no blame.
It could be proven that the insane have taken up religion. It can also be shown through MRI's that the very same stimuli and the effects thereof that invoke religious beliefs also invoke insanity and delusion.
Where's that MRI proof?
If someone said they were a Christian and believe Jesus rose from the dead, others wouldn't think they were psychotic. If someone said a ostrich with a pink apron rose from the dead, people would suggest that person go to the loony bin.
I want to ask you a question. The American elite, including George Bush and David Gergen and a myriad of past presidents, go to Bohemian Grove where people dress up in robes with fish hats and worship Lillith, the owl, and perform mock sacrifices.
Are these people insane?
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi … ne.0007272
Other Christians, maybe, but that is definitely insane.
Could be. Certainly, anyone who claims businesses were run by Satanists would probably be insane.
Oh yes, Sam Harris...the unbiased beacon of truth.
Here's a revelation for you. When a thief steals something, he uses the motor cortex of his brain. When a neurosurgeon performs surgery, he uses the motor cortex of his brain. Oh my gosh! The desire act of doing evil and doing good is synonymous! I mean, it has to be because they both use the same part of the brain.
That study of yours proves nothing. It does not prove that religious thinking is insanity. Using the same part of the brain does not conclusively mean that insanity and religious thinking are the same.
I actually can't believe I'm responding to you. Did you just write that or are my eyes deceiving me?
Oh! COULD BE? When I claim that Jesus rose from the dead, I'm definitely insane but when they play tape recordings emulating Satan talking to them and parade about in front of an owl and make mock sacrifices they ONLY COULD BE insane! Do you know how ridiculous you are?
I'm sorry, but when businesses adopt Satanic symbols in their logos, I can't help think they are run by Satanists...That's just logical thinking.
And you always chastise people for focusing on you when you turn the subject around and focus on me. Too funny.
What are you talking about, you want MRI evidence and you got it.
That is not a revelation, that is a lie you have created.
The studies show the facts, Claire. Sorry if you dismiss it out of hand but that would just show how dishonest you are, especially having just created a lie.
No, it is not logical thinking by any stretch of the imagination, it is paranoia delusion.
How does the MRI "evidence" prove that the part of the brain used for religious thinking automatically means one is insane because that part of the brain is also exercised during an episode with a schizo, for example. You said I am insane because I have religious beliefs and provided MRI "evidence" to "prove" it. So prove it. I wonder if you even understand what Harris said. Give me a summary what he said.
Of course it is pure nonsense. I am making this comment according to your logic.
Lol, only another psycho would engage with another psycho every day.
I noticed you ignored this comment:
Love the way you are reluctant to call our world leaders insane but are very quick to condemn me as insane. Hypocrite.
Let's settle this once and for all. Would you like a debate about this?
What does Sam Harris have to do with anything? Why are you fixated on him?
No, you're not, you're making it yourself and it has nothing to do with logic of any kind.
Claire, you don't know the first thing about debating.
This just proved that you didn't even read the article you posted to me. It means you don't even understand what you posted.
This is what is written in the article:
Formal Correction: This article has been formally corrected to address the following errors.
The Funding section included some information that relates to competing interests. The Competing Interests section should read: Sam Harris, one of the first authors on this study, is also a co-founder and CEO of The Reason Project. The Reason Project... (read formal correction)
Another thing, I read the article and it does not suggest that the religious are predisposed to psychosis based on the various areas of the brain that are used during the questions they were asked.
The study fails to differentiate between those Christians who believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God and those who don't. Those who don't obviously have reasoned to come to the conclusion that it is not infallible. I reject various parts of the OT, for example, based on research that has been done that debunks it.
What reasoning do I use to come to the conclusion that Satan and the Holy Spirit exist? Their influence in the world and mine. It is completely irrational to believe that the universe come about from nothing. God and Satan are actually comprised of positive and negative frequencies respectively. The lower the frequency the more evil there is. The higher the frequency, the more love there is. All these emotions such as love is what diminishes Satan's power because he cannot access those higher frequencies. So he tries to drag us down to the lower frequencies by causing discord, people to hate, etc. If you watch programs on hauntings you will notice that people become more aggressive and there is fighting in the family. Demons know that if they can break the family unit, because they are unified by love, they get more power. This is why Satanists sacrifice people. When a person is sacrificed, they experience sheer terror and pain. That lower frequency is in their blood and that is why they consume it.
Frequencies have always been around and exist in other dimensions, too. The universe is in the third dimension but spiritual beings are not in this dimension because their frequencies are not the same as ours. You can't prove God and Satan physically because they aren't tuned into this dimension. Think of a radio. When you dial into a certain frequency you are tuned into a certain station. When you continue turning the dial you tune into another one. The last station hasn't stopped broadcasting just because you can't hear it anymore. It just means that frequency has is not within our range anymore. It's the same with ghosts or spirits. You cannot see them most of the time because they are not tuned into this dimension. When they do, you see apparitions. The more in tune they are with this dimension, the more solid their appearance is.
Of course it isn't logical because it is illogical for you to insinuate all religious people are insane as you initially claimed. I've noticed you now have amended it to "many religious people are insane".
It's no laughing matter. You truly are sad.
In other words, you know that I've prove my claim. Here's your chance to prove I've REALLY lost it!
So what? There were a number of names on that article, yet you chose to focus on Sam Harris for some reason. Yes, I did read it, but it makes me wonder if you did, or you just read the first name on the list.
Of course, it doesn't, because that is irrelevant to the study.
That logical fallacy is called "circular reasoning".
Didn't your god create the universe from nothing? Or, was there a "something" he used to create it?
Hilarious. And you have some evidence for those "frequencies"?
Please seek professional help, Claire.
Agreed, the sooner you get professional help...
Uh, you've already provided ample evidence for that yourself, Claire.
Even though I think Religion is miss-guided in ancient myths, it's not possible that most of the people in the world are insane. General nice people, yet Dumb all over a little ugly on the side " If man is dumb and we are in Gods image, then God is dumb too.
If aliens appeared, how could we explain all the many bad things we have done? How could we ever make excuses for the horrible being we have been.
Well, because we are sinful and desperately wicked, of course!
Seriously, that would be the explanation.
And if aliens did come, they would be in His image as well!
You mean all Aliens would look like humans, I can only imagine they would look more that bar scene in the first Star Wars Movie.
If Alien came to earth they would probably say- no sense stopping in here, there is no intelligent life down there.
...i luved that bar scene! ....evenin' CP!
Enjoying these slow times in the Kootenay Mountain , how is your island in the Pacific?
Many of the Star Wars movies got better as they went along
...the big island is good...yikes!....snow and crap for a few hours today tho...OMG!...it's all gone now!....i need to get out for a mbike ride this weekend...i've some nice shiny chrome i need to check out and listen to....it'd better be warm enuf and with sunshine!
what's the crow's nest like?...i'm passing thru soon, or if winter is still there, i'll fly..as the crow flies...would rather drive through the rockies tho!
...ahhhhh...sounds like a bit of peace in the Kootenay area...good for you!
let me know , if you pass through Creston, we can have a coffee together
hey CP...i'll keep that in mind...passing thru to Alta...that'd be kewl actually...HP meetup in Creston ...any others out there? ...bring some sand/shells from the beach? ...maybe we should start another thread on HP - 'meet and great in Creston'......later...gater...
Just two cents worth - answering Claire's question is pure spectualtion until a 72 hour observation occurs. It may be intereting to discuss the criteria of the the 4 - D's of abnormal behavior.
Those are to be met before an axis diagnosis for abnormal behavior by a professional would occur.
Since it takes place more often than not in the Religion & Philosophy forum, then that is the societal norm - religion or religious, yet not necessarily religiosity.
Looking forward for the 78% USA college kids who believe in Evolution. Physiologist and the proffesion of mental health which has too high of a rate of suicides for me to have much faith in.
I prefer my history studies and knowing where people are coming from and know where they are going
What the hay are you talking about?
There's nothing insane about the belief in God.
Unless you're talking about some specific religions that worship a useless statue of Buddha or something; then you might have a point.
It's very irritating to see Christianity lumped in with idol-worship religions etc. (When you say "the religious" of course we know you mean Christians too).
And no, Christianity isn't insane and could not be proven insane in a legitimate human Court of law either! Matter of fact, there's much more evidence to the contrary. And I wish people would stop trying to re-name common sense something other than what it is. It's much more "insane" to spout the idea that humans came from some little glob of nothingness; which, incidentally, can be easily debunked by both religion and science when one uses a common-sense basis.
I'm talking about people who say, but really cannot believe, that the religious are insane and it's ridiculous. That means the majority of the world is insane.
I agree with you. The thought of RNA just suddenly developing into DNA then sprawling out of the primordial soup and forming life in the sea which then migrated into land. Then fish gave way to reptiles then mammals. To think that life just assembled itself, along with consciousness, without divine intelligence being behind it, is just asinine.
More silly will be thinking a "divine intelligence" with immense power suddenly bursting out of nothing, and then creating everything.
Of course God didn't burst out of nothingness, the theoretical being has always existed. You must empathize with the impulse to think that the simplest explanation is always the most likely, unfortunately this is only sometimes. How much easier it is to accept the lot handed to you instead of questioning. How much easier it is to imagine a God with a face and fingers modeling creation as a potter, snowy white beard melting into the clouds of a physical heaven, than a formless impulse, a first mover. It is reasonable that, cooking from scratch, God created the laws of physics, causing the random motion of particles, a big bang, solar nebulas, accretion disks, planetiods, planets, primorial goo in which chemicals had the right condtions to form the simplest organisms, and a process by which these simplest organisms could change. God real or God fake, can you possibly look at this primtive way we have of understanding the universe as not at all related to your God's process? Certainly God could have forseen that the smallest amount of effort could produce eternal results. The creator wouldn't need to be in his workshop literally splicing genes all day long to produce all the animals and humans. Certainly wouldn't have needed to take a tissue sample from Adam to create Eve.
Or you could take a stance claiming that the laws of nature just exist, based on the properties of matter. The big bang does seem a bit improbable, unless i could understand it as a cycle, but I don't. So I don't have to have an answer for everything. I can live my life without a creation story, fake science based or folk tale based. Reality isn't a complete mystery to me, so what caused the first motion is immaterial. i know that something caused it, but have no data from that time frame, and the ability to catch light from a time frame nearer to that first motion will not give me significant evidence to make a descion on this(there's some deep space telescope being built eta 2018 or someting). If you think that creation began with a big bang that's fake science (aka theoretical). If you think that God worked all day long for seven days, micromanaging the details, crafting things like a sculptor you're buying into a folk tale.
Do I qualitfy as agnostic yet?
Anyhow something started it, you'll never know in your life, you might think you do, but you won't. The process by which it developed is becoming clear, you can denounce it all you like.
"Of course God didn't burst out of nothingness, the theoretical being has always existed."
There is only one problem though. The logic was all beings need to be created, and now you are contradicting by saying this being is eternal.
Again this thing has to exist to create, that means it is an object and all objects are matter. This god thing needs to take decisions and for that the decision making mechanism should be there(which again need some matter) and should preexist. That means it is matter that is eternal not the god.
"If you think that creation began with a big bang that's fake science (aka theoretical). If you think that God worked all day long for seven days, micromanaging the details, crafting things like a sculptor you're buying into a folk tale."
Both are folktales and bears very similarities.
While atheists and theists alike suffer from confirmation bias, the agnostics are real charlatans with their feigned humility of ignorance.
I am an agnostic atheist. I promise, there is no charlatanry involved. However, I am ignorant to varying degrees, depending on the topic. This admission requires no humility.
People are ignorant in varying aspects, but nobody other than an agnostic displays it and put forward it as a theory.(I'm, here, discussing only about universe, god and creation. I have no idea where Zambia is except that it is somewhere in Africa, but that is not what we mean when we say agnostic or atheist)
Your implication seems to be that the agnostic comes to the table with the least knowledge when you attach ignorant as a label. There is no need to take sides when there is such a significant lack of knowledge about something. By its very definition, a rational decison requires all pertinent information. Thus making the agnostic the only category that is not making an insane choice. Ignorance is not something that is capable of being applied to a whole group of people, that is discriminatory.
I'm an agnostic only because I value intellectual honesty.
If you are honest, you 'll know that creation(singularity or god) is a bogus claim. Creation suppose a beginning, while beginning and end are based on the concept of time. In nature we have objects that continuously change location with other(which we call time), no beginning or end, no creation. Matter is eternal.
If you are honest you'll also inquire what this god thing is, and 'll know it is a concept and'll acknowledge that concepts don't exist.
When you know Him, He is no concept, when you don't.... you cannot understand.
I know Him, and more importantly, He knows me.
Take off the blinkers and look around, you may wake up.
If you "know" a concept, you are deluded. Leave the dogmas, and think critically you'll understand you can stand erect without crutches.
You could also take the time to read the post before you get all vitriolic and insulting.... the actual post said:
"When you know Him, He is no concept, when you don't.... you cannot understand."
You merely proved the point for me.
How can you know someone, who's face you've never seen and who's name you've only ever heard on the lips of the living?
It is the lack of comprehension and understanding about spiritual matters that makes this post pointless to attempt to answer.
I understand that you cannot conceive how believers communicate with God, and that is possibly not your fault or intention.
You infer elsewhere that you have a relationship with god, (as you know him) so be it, you have your personal god and I will not bother you with how a believers relationship functions, unless and until you show some genuine interest and desire to experience that relationship.
Best wishes, and may God truly Bless you in your life.
Actually its you who should take time to understand.
You cannot know something that does not exist. Your are just misconstruing what you experience to rationalize what you first believed and not objectively analysing, that is you first proposed there is god and then arrange the facts to fit to that.
Actually, you are wrong, first you make the declaration that God does not exist, you have no 'evidence' that would pass YOUR scrutiny to prove that.
The fact that YOU are unwilling or unable to establish a relationship with God is insufficient to prove that He does not exist.
You have no ability or authority to decide what I 'misconstrue', your experiences are not mine, you have no right or capacity to make such statements.
Your opinion is worthless, and frankly I have no interest in your pontifications, you are rapidly showing your own closed minded thinking and that is how it should be.
If you disagree with my posts, just ignore them.
I intend to do the same for yours, which are futile in the extreme.
Agnosticism is the only truly honest stance, given the lack of data and claims made by the majority. But, you are right. Agnosticism lacks the arrogance prevalent in the theist and atheist argument.
Agnostic says there is another route where there is none and 'appeal to ignorance', the fallacy.
There is no fallacy jomine. Prove your case......you can't. Nor can the other side. No one truly knows. No matter how arrogantly you guys persist in insisting that you do.
We can prove many claims are false, but we can't prove that God does not exist. Nor can we say, with firm evidence to back it up, where and when existence began.
So, from where I stand, both far ends are grasping at straws. Agnostics have a need to know the truth, and the patience to wait for it. The religious may have been confused into thinking they found the universal truth, but atheists are no different.
Imo, both sides hum the same tune, but neither side is offering lyrics that wrap the song into a sellable package.
Proof is subjective, you might have seen that the Theists argue that the world is a proof of god while atheists arguing the reverse.
'God exist' by meaning of god and definition of exist.
Creation is irrational hence an impossibility hence there is no god, if the term means a creator.(we cannot be certain that all rational happens, but we can be certain that irrational does not)
And i agree, both atheist and theist say the same thing, only that the Theists have a magical being while atheist got a magical singularity.
Proof is subjective if the claim is subjective, but not otherwise.
I'll give you an example, finger prints of the accused on the murder weapon. For the defence it is the accused's attempt to save the victim while for the prosecutor its the accused's attempt to murder.
Proofs carry value only in the interpretation and it is subjective.
I'm interested to know what your theory is regarding the creation of the universe. Since the Big Bang theory is fake science according to you, what is the probable scenario? That the universes always existed and they are born when others die?
Okay, I get your point. But what about what Christians really believe? Nobody I know equates Jesus with a superhero.
He is the super natural and the champion of soul taking, JC OR his father are not my heroes, yet there are for many, a hero, like Jesus Christ super star
That is both depressingly true (just look at "christian" television!) and sadly wide of the mark. Jesus doesn't "take" souls and "Jesus Christ Superstar" is as close to the Bible as the Koran.
This doesn't change what I actually wrote, though.
No Claire. I don't think the religious are insane. Paranoid, delusional might be a better definition for some. Especially those who claim to see Satan in every corner. That could be easily proven in a court of law.imo.
No. Not always. I would think it would depend on how much it inhibited their ability to function in normal society. We are all paranoid of something. Aren't we?
No Emile, there is no criteria that a delusion or paronoia should disrupt normal societal function. In fact in 'delusional disorders', the person is otherwise normal.
But you are right, all Delusions are not due to mental illness, it can be due to neurological illness too, but a delusion is always pathological (ICD -10).
But, I would assume insanity does disrupt normal function?
Insanity only means a psychiatric disorder, but for the general public an insane is the one who cannot look after himself.
A 'delusional disorder' is a psychiatric disorder but the person can carry out his normal activities in spite of the disorder. And in mild forms of schizophrenia(the classical Insanity) the disease may go undetected for years.
The only normal activity they are prevented or they cannot undertake is certifying in court.
The picture we get from movies are only the extreme cases.
Sometimes I wonder to what degree America is schizophrenic, one faith I do about the USA there are many who are hard workers and wise. They will find a way to get better.
Phew! that's a relief doc, I must be sane, because I 'look after' a fair number of people, run businesses for the last 30 years and have never needed any shrinks to help me, indeed I have counselled hundreds of folk who did need help.
But hang on.... if I could be considered sane by you, well that would mean I was an atheist!
Yikes... I need to spend more time with the Holy Spirit.
The ONLY counsellor I need.
opps missed I DO KNOW , part in my last post
Most likely you are sane, It just much of the US is Dumb with a little ugly on the side "You will be taken over by the spiritual age, replacing much of the Holy Crap
An excellent example of hallucination and lack of comprehension!
Really... which bit triggered that response, the bit where I confirmed that I was a fully functioning human being who took care not only of myself, but others, or the fact that I desire to spend more time with the Holy Spirit.
Science really has blinded you doc.
You got it backwards, blind faith is blind, science is lame
Actually, the inference was that too much reliance upon science has blinded our friend to the spiritual aspects of life.
You are claiming all the 99% unknown spirituality in the entire world and Universe in the name of Yahweh
Don't you think that is an insane concept to begin with?
Not in the least, I started off on a whole different spiritual path, so I know full well there are a multitude of spiritual pathways to tread, not 'claiming' anything for God at all, He needs nobody to claim what is already His.
But there are some folk who have no spiritual existence, nor recognise that we are spirit living in our bodies.
They are too focussed on worshipping the creation to see the Creator.
You just feel your Yahweh group has all the spirituality in the entire Universe and most of the rest of the world's population on this planet dose not have a spiritual bone in their body, unless most of these people know Jesus in which they don't.
My God is everything, your God is nothing attitude, so lets fight.
That would be the same science that provides everything in your life so you may comfortably spend time with your Holy Spirit.
Of course, I do not decry technology, it pays my bills and makes life easier, but anybody who is so focused on science that they cannot see other things is a blind as someone who is so focused on religion that they deny science.
The two areas are both valid.
A secularist may well see science as more relevant to their lives, equally a believer will see religion as more relevant.
Being blinded to either aspect is foolishness.
See other things? Seek professional help if you're having hallucinations. There is nothing in nature that you can see that I can't see.
Yes, that is why believers are hypocrites.
Then, we are both blinded by the aspects of Islam and every other religion you and I don't accept. By selectively not being blinded by one of those religions, you become a hypocrite.
"Phew! that's a relief doc, I must be sane, because I 'look after' a fair number of people, run businesses for the last 30 years and have never needed any shrinks to help me, indeed I have counselled hundreds of folk who did need help"
Lack of comprehension.
Why because, this was a response to this statement "Insanity only means a psychiatric disorder, but for the general public an insane is the one who cannot look after himself"
This means, though for general public insane is a person who cannot look after himself, the word insanity only denotes a psychiatric disease. The person may or may not be able to look after himself, depending on the type of disease, though he is insane.
And this are the synonyms of insane:
1. demented; lunatic, crazed, crazy; maniacal. 3. foolish, irrational.
"I need to spend more time with the Holy Spirit'
"if I could be considered sane by you, well that would mean I was an atheist!"
An atheist? That is a generic term which has nothing to do with being sane or not!!
"...the person is otherwise normal."
You mean WITHOUT the paranoia?
Yeah, that IS the disruption to the 'normality'.
I'm going to DIE laughing from this thread..........
Is pleading the fifth applicable here?
You don't have to plead, you are exempted by the McNaughtan's rule!
plead the fifth
what's the difference any more..
i don't want out, let me IN.
You mean the severity of the paranoia then?
Not particularly afraid, but i dislike clowns..
Hmm.. spiders are cool. But the eight eyes thing aint cute...
I only go nuts if they disappear. LOL
fear or dislike of clowns is kinda of funny too
Well I don't like them.
Maybe it's because they don't act like themselves.. lol
I think you mean paranoia that is baseless that is psychotic. For example, if the average Joe thinks the CIA is after him that is baseless, that is psychosis. If one believes that a one world government wants to enslave them because of facts presented or facts that allude to that, that is not paranoia.
You could argue that those who take the words of the Bible as more as fundamental truth, rather than an interpretative work, may have more delusional tendencies. So is it with any fundamental adherent, believing that the ancient stories, miralces and prophecies are specific and historical.
Erm.. Not a truth?
What ARE historical documents then??
oh... OH.. I see it. My bad..
You mean like poetry then?
Sry.. gotta disagree completely.
You got me on historical documents. Depends on what connotation you take historical with.
But able to be held up to interpretation, sorry you lose on that one. You showed me just how to interpret someone's words with your attempt above.
Interpretation is not just for poetry, but all of literature and history itself. The Bible easily fits into all three of those categories.
But I tend to disagree with anyone who claims that all events in the Bible actually happened. The stories are historical and even contain specualtion of events that occured hundreds, if not thousands, of years before they were written. Show me the old testament scripture that says that all of the words contained therein can be attributed God. As far as I know, only several sentences can be directly attributed to God. It is an understanding of religious tradition, between now, the inquisition, the dark ages and the founding of the Christain church that these are the words of God. For Christ to say that the law still stands, if far from him affirming that Moses parted the Red Sea.
The Red Sea parting is scientifically verified by artifacts.. Really bad choice of example.
And the Gospels were written to be eye witness accounts. Such as those that would be used for court.
Simon Greenleaf has some good work if you really want the 'TRUTH' on the subject. He's far above some of the nuts on this site.. lol
And, Christ saying the Law stands, in contrast to your statement absolutely stands if Christ indeed rose from the dead. But denial, nor affirmation is possible to force on an individual because Jesus Christ never claimed He would 'make' anyone believe in Him.
And accuracy of the text? Really? I've done the research and it's absolutely not innacurate.
It's the most upheld works of writing in all of known time....
Oh a gilded chariot wheel found at the bottom of the red sea! My bad. Or maybe those commemorative columns moses took the time to buld on either side! OO a human bone! There's only one way it could have gotten down there! Sounds like straining to do some explaining. OK so if that story isn't hogwash maybe you could tell me that some of these other ones are also bad examples, ofcourse proven true by hardcore objective science: the great flood, pillars of salt, adam and eve, the paternity of jesus, the plagues in egypt (its raining cats and dogs!), walking on water.
Maybe if you did more than slander people's research you would also have listened when they attempted to teach you odds and probability.
I know your type. God would have to slap you with a iron beam just to humble you and your mockery.
No strain little one. The wisest men in history which built much of the principles you enjoy under the legal system claim those of your likes to be headstrong and finger pointing lacking the ability to accept anything save it be shoved down your throat due to your personal pre-existing bias.
You searched for exactly what you want to dismiss and read nothing further.
Been there myself.
Enjoy your denial, while it lasts as life is short. Deathbeds are laid in alone
My tone is a reflection of your tone. You mock and condecend everyone who disagrees with you. In your post you use violent imagery to attempt to cast me as stubborn. Hitting me over the head with an iron bar, shoving stuff down my throat. Your frustration should not lead to violence. your kind has burned people like me long enough.
I see. I am little and you are big. You think diminuative language will increase the strength of your words, makes you sound like a bully morelike.
You are in denial. The whole point of your religion is faith, not fake science.
Oh - and I figured I'd add a timeline for you to set things straight.
Post 1 - Yes, I laughed at you calling witness accounts and historical documents 'interpretive works'.. I consider that a self made definition, and thought it was cute. And didn't even say you were wrong - I SAID I disagreed completely, being 'why' I laughed as it sounded personally biased to me.
Post 2 - I said you made a bad choice because there was physical evidence. And the nuts I referred to are also my friends as well. But hey, I know what you thought.. It's cool. I also said the texts were indeed accurate.
I said, as well, you have the option of affirming or denying.
And last smiley. Please note why, alluding to post directly below.
Post 3 - I made note you mocked not only the Bible disrespectfully, [NOT ME] AND mocked science in that you did not even come back with the full list of elements regarding their discoveries.
I also pointed out the men that built your legal system have wrote about exactly the way you portrayed in their writings and said you and those like would mock and never listen to anything save they give you your every request in evidence. You would not believe unless you HAD TO for reason the proof PINNED YOU DOWN was my point.
I stated deathbeds are laid in alone. It is an old phrase, meaning life is very short, which I added to be clear.
Your accusations are ridiculous. I said what I said because your post was PURE SARCASM. You did NOT reflect a 'fun' tone and were disrespectful.
I have apologized when my fun upsets people, and would have done so with you. But your entire post was arrogant sarcasm and nothing kind. No smileys, no grand point - save mockery.
The Christians were 'burned' ... Not 'your' kind. Hence the reason 'martyr' is so well affiliated with Christianity.
Your sarcasm was what lead to me rebuking you - what voilence?
I stated in my second post you could accept OR deny - Shoving NOTHING down your throat. YOU engaged in the thread, you became sarcastic and disrespectful with no point but to demean and then I stated you were closed minded because you didn't look for anything but something to poke at - and didn't even come back with much of anything acting as if you debunked something.
Big and little? No - I stated what you acted like. Don't put words in my mouth.
I said it's your choice and you chose.. to be sarcastic and intentionally demeaning and disrespecful. So I gave you ADVICE. LIFE IS SHORT.... Don't wait until you have no time to look.
It's also your choice whether to take the advice.
You didn't poke fun. You were outright ugly. I didn't hit anything. I didn't shove anything. You're confused on 'who' got burned. I'm not a bully.
And you have no clue what faith is.
You assertions are now dissolved.
I did mean you are stubborn.
I didn't do anything you accused me of.
I agree to disagree.
It's all cool.
Have a good one.
Oh, and violent imagery? Seriously??
Shove down throat is an old saying for children who don't take their medicine..
It's violent to make children take medicine now? lol
The expression merely means to force someone to do something -- or to agree to something -- that they normally wouldn't. Yes, the "someone" might be a child, and the "something" might be medicine. However, the expression might also refer to an act that is much more violent, as I'm sure you are aware.
You can't hope to be taken seriously if you are going to be disingenuous.
Some people push me not to care friend.
And I've been working on myself, but this little bit was not a one way street.
Btw, like i said - for years it was used as a phrase by women talking about children and medicine.
Just because people misuse the phrase and put evil intentions to it doesn't change it's true version. It simply means people misuse it, but I do not.
I am aware, but I'm not violent.... lol With such implications I should be serious? Why? To get upset and pissy? Nope..
Life is short. If you want serious you have the option to or to not conversate with yours truly.
Who can describe you better than yourself!
Then what happened, somebody hit you on your head?
The parting of the Red Sea actually has been an event eyewitnessed a handful of times in modern history. It takes place at a shallow part of the sea when a steady, hard wind will literally drive back part of the water. It hasn't been seen very often but it has been seen.
Heard that on NPR, by the way, so it wasn't on some Christian-biased show.
I am not religious, I believe Jesus and only in Him, if that belief is classed as insanity then I am happy to be a total fruit cake.
You may be right MP!50 There is no where in the Bible where jesus says people should believe on things when there is evidence that those things are not true. Christianity only asks people to exercse faith on those things which we may yearn to be given evidence about or perhaps strong ground to believe. For example, some people of Jesus' times wanted firm ground to justify that he is the God's sent. But, on those occassions, Jesus could say nothing other than that they should exercise some amount of faith in him.
I have seriously looked at other options and nahh Im with you on that one.
Psst Who is qualified to say who is insane on this forum
Tis like that movie "One flew over the cuckoo's nest"
The simple answer to the question is 'no', they cannot.
Of course, I'm waiting for the conflict of interest objection...
Yesterday I caught seventeen bass and one crappie.
What does this have to do with anything?
None of those fish had any scientific evidence to support the claim by other fish that fishermen and fillet knives exist.
I suspect the whole "missing fish phenomenon" is argued quite a lot in King's Creek and Cedar Creek Lake....probably the fish that believe in fishermen and fillet knives are thought "less evolved specimens" by the materialist philosopher fish....led by Catfish Dawkins.
Perhaps, the theocratic fish amongst them told them that fisherman and fillet knives were just scientific mumbo-jumbo lies being spread by other fish in light of the Great Fish God who promises everlasting life after being breaded and baked.
Well, I think the fish that I bread and bake go to heaven.....
Sometimes you don't ever hear what is said cauz..e your own shadow keeps dripping into your eyes. Or something very much like that Or ...
A whole lotta kinda-sorta
Meh, sanity is overrated anyway. Is it really something worth aspiring to?
True, yet you hear so often the kind of words like- insanity, delusion and irrational come up on the this Religious Forum. Personally I would very rarely would use those kinds of words. J ust in respect that I am no better or worst person than the next guy
Yep! You are both right, As far as sanity is concerned .... I've never known anyone who were running on much more than a half tank.
People who understand what and where their sexual organs are and how these organs help body to throw waste will think thrice before claiming intelligent design and will rethink their position of being sane.
I think that we are ALL insane!
There have been some of us who have formed groups, proclaiming ourselves to be sane. With this authority which we have given to ourselves, we can then ofically proclame everyone else to be CRAZY.
As long as we do this in a democratic manner.
EVERYbODY is crazy acording to some other democratic body,
And to this end, I agree completely.
You love jesus and consider him as savior, don't you Brenda? Irony
Insanity is a recurring event, repeated every generation, in every family, in every individual. Everybody's nuts to some degree, some more so than others.
This religion vs atheists is getting old.
Every one has the right to believe what they want, just stop judging.
It is always good to discuss or debate about this because the results are extremely important. Good persuasive evidence aptly presented moves people toward clarity of scripture and bountifulness of God.
It should never be stopped.
The fruit from any conversation could produce at any time in anyone's life
I haven't read every comment, but would like to just put out there my thought: People need faith in something/someone. In the good times and in the bad, people need someone to lean on, or blame. Since scientist do not have a "real" answer asides from evolution (which in and of itself in my opinion, is a real answer) it is all a big mystery. So the concept behind religion is their answer.
Yes they do.
Some people do
You need to get out more
Not true at all, people do not "need" to have faith in things if they understand things. What you and the bro are saying then, is that those who refuse to understand anything need to have faith to fill in the gaps for their lack of understanding.
Perhaps, you're both right then, the brain dead require faith.
By faith people go to bed at night believing they will rise in the morning.
By faith people don't jump off buildings because they know they will either be seriously hurt or dead
By faith the car will start when we turn the key
By faith people hop in the car and drive to their destination thinking they will arrive safely.
By faith you believe that your partial understandings of things are real and that your actions are not perceived as insane.
These examples which are only a smidgen are not faith in God but they are the type of faith used by all, however it is shrouded in cause and effect thought pattern and explicitly limited to the 5 senses.
Faith is everywhere in everything, it does not exercised like faith in God nor is the same "type" of faith which spurs people onto to good works of God but as that "natural" type of faith navigates us in this world so does the faith in God navigate his people in our world and i suspect the next world too.
Shrouded and limited?
Baloney. Faith in gods navigates good people to say and do bad things, which is what evidence reveals to us.
Yes, evidence, like the evidence of what you said about Earnest. Shall I copy/paste that here for you, again? Like the evidence of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada who know you and would very much like to keep you away from them because of the things they claim you said.
and very dishonest of you
@HMathis1112 valid point and makes sense...why do we have 400 religions is because of what u said...and believe doesnot need to be TRUTH...it is true for those who believe...it is not bad as along as ones keeps it personal and doesnot impose or sell it to others...slowly and gradually religions do get phased out with new religion coming into being...
Faith is good, it's what keeps many people much poorer than us alive. I think everyone should have a little faith in them, it's not proven that god doesn't exist and it never will be. I think it's important to let people believe what they want to believe providing it doesn't come into conflict with the law of the land!
Insanity is interesting when it comes to the things of God.
Lets look at the walls of Jericho because it is fairly well known.
God said march around the walls 3xs for 7 days, on the 7th day blow trumpets.
Now the walls of Jericho were immensely thick and deemed unbreakable, but what happened? They came a tumbling down.
Were Gods people insane? They certainly must have looked insane to the people on the walls of Jericho.
But did the outcome support that they were insane?
Lets look at Noah building an ark in the middle of a desert with not water around for miles and miles and miles and miles.
Did Noah seem sane?
But what happened?
Lets look at Moses, an educated man but some say with a stutter and God chose him to speak to pharaoh, albeit he gave him Aaron, but still the point of Moses stutter is not moot and God picked him in spite of this.
But what was the outcome?
Lets look at Saul of Tarsus - left rich lifestyle, turned completely around
King David - committed many harsh sins - yet with amazing dedication to God repented like no other.
John the Baptist - lived in the desert eating weird food
jesus lifestyle and crucifixion - would anyone willingly go to their own crucifixion?
So i deem it quite safe to come to the rational conclusion, by the evidence above, of which is only a smidgen, that we can never imply that Gods people are insane, we can only wait with eager expectation see what God will do through them.
So true, brotheryochanan! Those are great points you made.
Nice stories written by crooks to impress fools, the wonderous thing is it still does!
Those rules, stories and ways of thinking may have worked back in those med evil times.
We have much deeper conscientiousness today and live a lot longer, unless you are foolish enough to believe in a 600 year old man like Noah. If you like adult fairy tales of talking animals and many absurd laws that all can't follow. Then carry on, be free, live those elusive and evasive quest, just don't drag us down to that low level of thinking and reasoning.
OK, you are free to disbelieve whatever you wish.
Are we done now?
nobody drags you anywhere, you are here of your own volition, of which the solution to your dilemma is easy.
Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Considering you start from the premise that God exists and talks to people and that those myths are somehow true would easily show insanity, especially if you consider them evidence and rational conclusions.
A troubled Man truly is a believer of God, he just does'nt know it yet! Usually the strongest athiests and unbelievers are the hardest to crack, yet turn out to be the strongest believer's when the light and love of Jesus Christ shines directly through them.
We as believers should not argue with this Man or any fellow athiests, we can do more by helping and supporting them letting Jesus do his own work on them, the worst thing we can do is argue and try and prove our point of view.
This just causes more distractions, as believers we already know that Jesus Christ does exist and is alive and well today our eyes have already been opened. There will be many tears from many athiests and unbelievers when the truth finally hits them.
I would think the amount of tears shed when thier eyes are opened to Jesus and his truth will be enough to end the World drought.
I feel mystic that Jesus was a beautiful human being, Nothing wrong with Keeping thou Religion to thou self. For most other people on earth, do not think that Christianity is only way to God or the be all and end all or the sum of all Philosophy.
Like many other Monotheism Religion, Christianity has their personal God with many wrong translation by 1000s of hand me downs which separates the world even more into 1000s of Myths and other denomination
Making any one of these Monotheism Religion into world order would surly be the end of the World as we know it. As many religions have tried and many people have died.
The greatest reason for killing is in the name of God, and these predominate religious wars cause more poverty because the rich keep use religion as a tool to control the masses. You are more likely to kill your fellow human being if you think he is sub human or a demon.
Religion interfere in the relationship with my family , with my jobs and on every continent on the mother nature green earth I'd traveled , Don't tell me to mind my own business when a lopsided group want to own my soul deep in the back of their minds.
Don't take my soul, it has million parts, for the only thing I have in life, is to give it all away, to every person and every group in the world, for the world is my family, not just Christians
Sure, drag me down to your level of delusion if it makes you feel better.
Irrational beliefs come in many forms. Of course, you can provide plenty of examples of that?
You have a point of view? I see only irrational beliefs based on medieval myths and superstitions. How is that a view?
<--- many tears being shed in hysterical laughter
If you only see irrational beliefs based on medieval myths , then your missing much of the human historical records and of pass human experiences of mankind. On the other hand, tying to live those med evil biblical times would mean committing suicide at age of 25 by today’s standard of consciousness. It would be insane to really live exactly like they did in those biblical times with their absurd laws.
I say what ever works, live and let live and wouldn’t drag anyone into anything. Let them feel like unworthy sinner and guilty for the rest of their lives for all I care and let Atheist be grumpy and stick to themselves.
There is a branch of science & reason in almost everything. Most waking hours of my life is doing art, there is a degree of my head in the clouds with one foot on the ground, the balance of this extreme makes me sane. Both Atheist and Fundamentalist religious one-sided belief or thinking would be too unbalancing or too limited thinking for me, not against any group, just not for some yet can share and incorporate some of it from everywhere.
In a world where 99% of the mass is unknown to each one of us. Then we have a greater unknown Universe which I'll the spiritual side of thing until we manifest it in our ego self then into our ego group then pass that on to an over ego world.
you can call it just unknown, if you like. God is just a word, my metaphor for God is about the source of good intention and higher energy. My experience of tapping into to this line of high energy, I can not explain it in words or black and white logic. It's just a Godlike experience that works and because everyone is God they will be able to do so, if they desire too.
What do scriptures have to do with historical records or mankind in the sense of something missing?
Hence, the hypocrisy and contradictions of believers.
Yes, many scriptures historical records are full of hypocrisy and contradictions of believers.
Most professional scientist are atheist or agnostic and also these two groups have the highest knowledge about the Religious world. Meaning, after Scientist works out much of the holy crap they will find the degrees of truth about much of our human history. Not much of our history is about Atheist or atheist great men
In other words, don't throw out the baby with the dirty bath water and that includes Jesus and the bible
I don't discount some things written in the Bible, whether they were proclaimed by a man called Jesus or otherwise, just like I don't discount things written in other books. However, it is not difficult to toss out Jesus and the Bible in regards to anything divine. That's all just plain nonsense and only serves to diminish that which shouldn't be thrown out.
It is too bad they over focus on a bible, when there is a million of other up to date books for people living for today . They rather fight than switch , as they enjoy all those horror stories nonsense which encourages more war and separating from other groups and other ways of thinking.
There is not enough healthy or metaphor stories for me turn my entire life to worship and love beyond everyone or thing on earth in which seems to be insane idea in the first place.
The religious are perfectly sane, here are some posts to prove my point.
Who told delusion is an irrational belief or it is part of insanity?
Yes some religious people are insane as they live life by a rule book or some religious ways that were written as bedtime stories and they just like to believe them and be ruled by them....poor misguided people, I definitely don't feel sorry for the weak of mind!
I'm covered after death right or wrong. Your future depends on you being 100 percent right.
Although that isn't why I believe, it's certainly not a bad logic as reasoning otherwise leaves one to blowing in fates wind without wings.[no parachute neither]
Don't poor me, you are reading from a man afraid of nothing.
Except being away from the one I love most.
And you follow plenty of rules, and are ruled plenty more than you or anyone else wants to admit. If you didn't follow them you'd be in jail.
weak of mind
that is a construed analogy based solely upon how one defines weak of mind.
It is so very weak to just follow your mind and let it guide you around
It is so not weak to train your mind and guide it where you want it to go
I still kinda think that we are all insane,
Yes there is an inner circle of which we all want to think that we are outside of,
believing in some 2k yr old book written by people unknown on topic which is unseen , unproven and putting life at stake for it defies logic but is it insanity?...i dont think so...it is attempt to make life meaningful which otherwise is meaningless for many individuals...
by TruthDebater6 years ago
I recently began reading a book that makes a good case for Jesus. I highly disagree with the Christian religion along with every other religion I have encountered. The author of the book makes a good case, either Jesus...
by Mahaveer Sanglikar3 years ago
Is atheism becoming another religion? I am asking this question because many atheists are loudly talking against 'other' religions, like many of the the propagandists of religions do.I myself am an atheist, and I think...
by marinealways246 years ago
Can a person be considered logical if the persons religious belief isn't logical? If a person is logical in some things, but not logical in religious belief, are they still considered logical or illogical?
by Sophia Angelique6 years ago
I cannot remember a time when Christians have not invaded every conversation and every forum with their belief about Jesus Christ. Please note that Jews don't do it, Muslims don't do it, Hindus don't do it, Budhists...
by jerami4 years ago
This won't last long I was just now thinking that it seems to me, every arguement that atheists make against the existence of god aren't directly related to that issue. Their arguements are against the ...
by kirstenblog7 years ago
I was reading a different thread that got me thinking about the history or religion and that it goes far back into history with many incarnations in different societies. Atheism on the other hand does not seem to have...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.