*************
M*W: We've heard it time and again. Some of the christians on this forum hear the voice of god in their heads. They've admitted it. They believe it. They worship it.

I call this a delusion. They're sick people. They don't have enough knowledge to debate issues on the validity of christianity. They believe blindly in something they cannot explain.

I say that when a christian comes on board and states that he/she hears god's voice in their heads, they should be banned permanently. This is not logical nor is it reasonable. Sane people do not hear voices in their heads. After all, this is a scientific forum. Hearing voices in one's head is not scientifically validated. I think this would stop the preaching once and for all. There is no room for blind belief in this forum. Hearing voices in one's head is not rational. It's insane. This is a scientific forum. Anyone hearing voices in their head should be permanently banned. Those who profess hearing god's voice in their heads should go to a christian forum where they won't be questioned, and where there no debate is required to prove those voices are real.

Am I alone here, or do you agree?

Absolutely, though Im not sure we should discriminate against Georgie Bush.

Well, make the rule for everybody and not just Christians, and I agree.

What's that? Oh, the voice in my head says you should have mentioned the contrast between rationalism and pure faith. Good point, voice in my head.

I agree that a good indication of a person's insanity is when they make claims like "god speaks to me", the reason being that if a god actually spoke to a person they woul dbe above mundane designations and the pushing of false ego that reqiuires one to clamour for authority ("listen to me because god spoke to me ..." blah blah blah - you might want to notice that when god speaks to such people he never tells them to give up sinful life, practice humility and serve him with unmotivated love, which is the message god is usually on about in scripture)

However if, as an atheist, one could theoretically accept the concept that god exists, is there any reason tha t he could not speak to someone?
What is it about the theists proposal that indicates god is incapabale of talking to someone?
In other words wouldn't it be a vote of confidence to support the value system of the atheists to demand that anyone who says "god spoke to me" should be banned?
It is my common experience that many christians use the phrase, not in the sense they were innvolved with a verbal conversation with god, but that they feel inspired in the heart by a perfectly clarified thought that pushes them on in spiritual life.

That said, i would agree that many people who say "god spoke to me" are probably a bit strange, or at least there claims to credibility can get lost in the demographics of such propounders, but to ban them could be a bit too severe - I think we just have to tolerate them like we do with the atheists who constantly blow their tops off in discussion with trolling, flaming and ad homs

how about thinking, isnt that like someone talking to you?

John99: how about thinking, isnt that like someone talking to you?

*************
M*W: No. Thinking is one's own thoughts. That's different than hearing "voices" in one's head. When people hear "voices" in their heads, it's some other voice telling them this or that. It's not their own thoughts. Or, at least they believe it's someone else's voice and not their own thoughts. I think it is, however, their own thoughts, but they attribute those thoughts to other entities. In any event, it is sick and delusional. I still say, these people need to be banned permanently. They are not in their right minds, so how can we hold logical discussions and debate with them?

No I don't think these people need to be banned from sciforums. Heck we need the clowns around here, for a good laugh, but then again in a more serious tone, they need to get to a psychiatrist. Hearing voices in your head is one of the sure fire signs of going schizophrenic.
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinformation/mentalhealthproblems/schizophrenia/schizophrenia/symptomsofschizophrenia.aspx

Schizophrenia, is a brain illnesses in very mystical people, the religious zealots often suffer from schizophrenia once or twice in their life time, they may also likely to get Altheismer when they are older.

Religious ideation and delusion have long been part of the symptomatology of individuals with schizophrenia. Most of the collective research energy in this area has been focused on the way religion informs the experience and treatment of schizophrenia, but little has been done to explore the implications of the relationship between religion and schizophrenia for our understanding of religion. The ability of individuals with schizophrenia to tap into the spiritual realm and to experience the divine via hallucination, delusion, and anomalous perceptual experiences may be one of the unique societal contributions of schizophrenia that has led to its persistence across races, continents, and a common genetic ancestry.
http://www.bumc.bu.edu/Dept/Content.aspx?DepartmentID=481&PageID=10063

you might want to notice that when god speaks to such people he never tells them to give up sinful life, practice humility and serve him with unmotivated love, which is the message god is usually on about in scripture

This would be of no relevance if MW's statements are accurate - because then those people featured in scripture would have been just as 'delusional' as anyone hearing voices now. Of course there wouldn't have been any qualified doctors around at the time to make mention of that.

Secondly god's message in scripture, (biblical at least), isn't really what your statement claims it is.

However if, as an atheist, one could theoretically accept the concept that god exists, is there any reason tha t he could not speak to someone?

Well you seemed to argue against this when I brought it up. I said the gods spoke to me - you then adamantly denied the possibility of it - saying I had no qualifications and whatnot. You seem to think that god/s are only capable of talking to someone if they have qualifications - which would surely rule everyone on this forum out for starters, (given your page upon page of waffling on about qualifications - although you didn't really manage to explain any technical data concerning these supposed qualifications).

Well you seemed to argue against this when I brought it up. I said the gods spoke to me - you then adamantly denied the possibility of it - saying I had no qualifications and whatnot. You seem to think that god/s are only capable of talking to someone if they have qualifications - which would surely rule everyone on this forum out for starters, (given your page upon page of waffling on about qualifications - although you didn't really manage to explain any technical data concerning these supposed qualifications).

its not clear how determining the qualification of someone (ie whether they are capable or not of living up to their claims) undermines the very possibility of the claim having even the possibility of being true

its not clear how determining the qualification of someone (ie whether they are capable or not of living up to their claims) undermines the very possibility of the claim having even the possibility of being true

Read:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61066

Read:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61066
all 110 posts or something in particular?

its not clear how determining the qualification of someone (ie whether they are capable or not of living up to their claims) undermines the very possibility of the claim having even the possibility of being true

Well according to you, the possibility of it being true is entirely dependant upon qualification. Thus if you were right it would be easy to work out who are the blatant fakes, and then get round to discussing evidence for 'qualified claims' later on. To do that of course one would need to know exactly what is needed to make a person "qualified" to be able to tell who is and who isn't, and who is therefore full of shit when they say god speaks to them.

If you recind your earlier statements and now say even the unqualified can engage in conversation with a god, you would need to work out how we are supposed to tell the real cases from the fraudulent ones. Content of message is really not sufficient.

Used to be that hearing the voice of God was rare occurance - it only happened to St.Patrick twice, and he spent seven years in a cow pasture waiting for it.

Now God talks to the president every day.:eek:

*************
Hearing voices in one's head is not rational. It's insane...

Am I alone here, or do you agree?

Hearing voices in your head means you probably have schizophrenia and you can be completely sane. Believing that the voices in your head are some super-life form speaking to you... that's insane:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61066

all 110 posts or something in particular?

The first 20 or so should do.

Well according to you, the possibility of it being true is entirely dependant upon qualification. Thus if you were right it would be easy to work out who are the blatant fakes, and then get round to discussing evidence for 'qualified claims' later on. To do that of course one would need to know exactly what is needed to make a person "qualified" to be able to tell who is and who isn't, and who is therefore full of shit when they say god speaks to them.

If you recind your earlier statements and now say even the unqualified can engage in conversation with a god, you would need to work out how we are supposed to tell the real cases from the fraudulent ones. Content of message is really not sufficient.
If you are referring to my earlier comment about swimming inthe ganga during winter, it means anyone can become qualified, in theory - just like in theory, anyone can take a swim in the winter .... of course in practice, not many do - just like in theory, anyone can become sufficiently proficient to perceive an electron, but practically few go through the ardours of such an endeavour

The first 20 or so should do.

any chance you can concisely express the key points or general principles

If you are referring to my earlier comment about swimming inthe ganga during winter, it means anyone can become qualified, in theory

I wasn't, but nevermind.

It's not clear though how we could know who is qualified and who isn't. I've been asking that for quite a while now but unfortunately it's still not clear.

I wasn't, but nevermind.

It's not clear though how we could know who is qualified and who isn't. I've been asking that for quite a while now but unfortunately it's still not clear.

well, what are the general principles you apply to determine whether a person in a particular field outside of your jurisdiction(ie direct perception) is qualified or not?

well, what are the general principles you apply to determine whether a person in a particular field outside of your jurisdiction(ie direct perception) is qualified or not?

I've been asking you, and I would respect your answer, (and not concerning other fields).

any chance you can concisely express the key points or general principles

mew mew mew mew
myuu myuu myuu myuu
pokemon pokemon pokemon pokemon
in my head, in my head, in my head, in my head
worship worship worship worship

I've been asking you, and I would respect your answer, (and not concerning other fields).

I could answer it but I am trying another approach - its not a difficult question (although there are a variety of answers on ecan give) and it is surely something we do practically everyday, since we encounter doctors, lawyers, police officers, tradesmen, etc etc as well as your neurologists and PhD Professors

if that general principle you use to determine the qualification of these people is bouyant then it should also act as a lead in to determining the qualification of a saintly person.

so go ahead
shoot

I could answer it but I am trying another approach

Don't try "another approach", (which is actually your usual approach of not answering questions). I would have thought you'd do it straight away, (considering it is "not a difficult question").

So please, without resorting to answering in terms of police officers/lawyers etc ... go ahead, shoot.

Hey Med Woman, do you have a conscience?

Hey Med Woman, if you can't defeat 'em, ban 'em, way to go, I just love your intellectual honesty, ahahahaha.

M*W: We've heard it time and again. Some of the christians on this forum hear the voice of god in their heads. They've admitted it. They believe it. They worship it.

I call this a delusion. They're sick people.
Am I alone here, or do you agree?

I agree! Anyone who doesn't believe exactly that same as we believe, then we should denigrate them, call them nasty names, oust them from our society and keep them from ever voting!

Baron Max

I nominate Med Woman as chief psychologist at this board, let's screen all new members through her awesome grasp of reality, you go Med Woman!

You really are an idiot threadstarter.

Hey Med Woman, if you can't defeat 'em, ban 'em, way to go, I just love your intellectual honesty, ahahahaha.

*************
M*W: To whom are you referring to "defeat?" "Defeating" someone was not my intention. I specifically referred to "those who hear voices in their head." These people are incapable of honest discussion and debate. They believe what they will, but they cannot back-up anything they say, except for referring to the "voices in their head -- the voice of god," etc. That's all. I would rather hear a good argument for one's religion, so responding to that argument would be worthy of the research I put into answering it. How can anyone reply to voices in someone else's head whom they believe to be god talking to them? The only thing that can be said is "get professional help." No one on this forum should be put into a position of responding to someone who is delusional. It could have serious and dangerous consequences when dealing with someone who is emotionally unstable. And using their delusions for comic relief is not funny.

Don't try "another approach", (which is actually your usual approach of not answering questions). I would have thought you'd do it straight away, (considering it is "not a difficult question").

So please, without resorting to answering in terms of police officers/lawyers etc ... go ahead, shoot.

if one does not have a process to rely on to determine the qualification of persons beyond their jurisdiction, one is a mad man - I have such a process, and I am sure I am not unique - I'm am trying to determine whether you are unique.

If you cannot determine whether a doctor is qualified or not (and you are not versed in medicine) then the chances of you determing whether a saintly person is qualified are next to nil.

if one does not have a process to rely on to determine the qualification of persons beyond their jurisdiction, one is a mad man - I have such a process, and I am sure I am not unique - I'm am trying to determine whether you are unique.

Assume I am.. answer the damn question. I am a doctor - I'm not entirely clued up on the lives of teachers, mechanics, airplane pilots etc. However, all it takes is 5 minutes and I can know the process that these people go through to become qualified. They do not shy away under the pathetic little statements that you consistently attempt.

It is really not as hard to determine who is qualified or not as you try to make out. What I want is your statement on what these people must go through to be considered qualified. You asked:

"However if, as an atheist, one could theoretically accept the concept that god exists, is there any reason tha t he could not speak to someone?"

I have brought up that reason that you have mentioned many times - that people are unqualified and therefore cannot get close to god in any way. I went on to say:

"Well according to you, the possibility of it being true is entirely dependant upon qualification. Thus if you were right it would be easy to work out who are the blatant fakes, and then get round to discussing evidence for 'qualified claims' later on. To do that of course one would need to know exactly what is needed to make a person "qualified" to be able to tell who is and who isn't, and who is therefore full of shit when they say god speaks to them.

If you recind your earlier statements and now say even the unqualified can engage in conversation with a god, you would need to work out how we are supposed to tell the real cases from the fraudulent ones. Content of message is really not sufficient."

So..

A) We would need to know exactly what is needed to make a person "qualified"

B) If the unqualified can engage in conversation with a god, we would need to work out how we are supposed to tell the real cases from the fraudulent ones.

Answers are welcome, non-answers are not. Either answer what has been posed or quit replying. I don't have the time to keep asking the same thing over and over to deaf ears.

Just because something is defined as a disease doesn't have to mean it is.
What's a "disease" anyway? Not being normal? In that case everyone is sick.

They believe what they will, but they cannot back-up anything they say, ...

Do you believe in "love"? Have you ever been in "love"? If so, can you back it up with rational, logical arguments and solid, scientific evidence?

No one on this forum should be put into a position of responding to someone who is delusional.

Is anyone forced to respond to anyone else on this forum?

By the way, I still believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy.

How 'bout you? What do you believe in? Peace and harmony and goodwilll for all mankind? Utopia? That all people should live together happily and in harmony? That war is not necessary? What do you believe in?

Baron Max

Do you believe in "love"? Have you ever been in "love"? If so, can you back it up with rational, logical arguments and solid, scientific evidence?

You will find she can, it's simple chemistry. Now, your turn..

I think people who post on internet forums are delusional.

I will never understand those who proclaim to have received "messages from God". And they act as though others who view them dubiously are insane for not hearing or receiving those "messages". My cousin is one such person, who along with her religious friends, appear to get "messages" from God about anything and everything. She is, in short, a loon.

When her father (my uncle) was on his death bed on the last day he spent alive, she and her little friends decided to pray around his bedside. The rest of us were a bit 'iffy' about it, but he was her father and she was going through a traumatic time. Issues arose when one of her religious friends (prayer buddies apparently) came bolting out of her chair and proclaimed loudly that she had just received a "message" from God that my uncle would be cured. My uncle at that point was in some form of coma, gasping for breath due to massive heart failure. My aunt (his wife and the mother of the "loon") became quite distressed and the prayer buddies were asked to leave. It was obvious my uncle was not going to last the day. And in their selfish zeal to prove they were correct, one of them spun towards me and told me that she'd received a message that I was suffering some pain in my ring finger. She had seen me nervously playing with my ring on said finger just moments before. That was it for me. I very nearly lost it. The only thing that kept me quiet was the fact we were in a room in a hospital cardiac ward. So I merely informed her the twirling ring thing I do is something I do when nervous or upset. The look on her face would have been comical if the situation we were facing were not so tragic. We ended up having to get the hospital staff to get them out of the room. So they, and my cousin, retired to the waiting room to pray for the miracle they were sure was going to come because they got a "message" that he was going to be cured. He sadly passed away 2 hours later.

I would have thought they'd have learnt their lesson, but it continues. At any gathering, my cousin is now known to leap up and start saying she's "just received a message from God" while her moronic husband starts chanting 'praise the lord' and then they both kneel down and start praying avidly, much to the embarrassment of her children and the rest of her family members. Action of a sane person? Somehow I doubt it.

Thankfully I am well away from it as I am seen to be the anti-christ due to my lack of belief. I rarely see her and she has been forbidden from entering our property due to her and her friends constant prayer harrassment lately during a very difficult time in my and my husbands life quite recently.

Assume I am.. answer the damn question. I am a doctor - I'm not entirely clued up on the lives of teachers, mechanics, airplane pilots etc. However, all it takes is 5 minutes and I can know the process that these people go through to become qualified. They do not shy away under the pathetic little statements that you consistently attempt.
Is your answer that you can understand the processes innvolved in whatever is beyond your jurisdiction in other fields of expertise in 5 minutes. Consideringthat it usually takes 1-3 years in academies of higher education, it appears to be a tall claim.

It is really not as hard to determine who is qualified or not as you try to make out.
i agree - it is not a difficult question - but since it seems on this forum there are academic tendencies to render simple things incomprehensible, I am awaiting your answer (assuming of course you don't want to stick with your first one)

What I want is your statement on what these people must go through to be considered qualified. You asked:

"However if, as an atheist, one could theoretically accept the concept that god exists, is there any reason tha t he could not speak to someone?"

I have brought up that reason that you have mentioned many times - that people are unqualified and therefore cannot get close to god in any way.
I never said all people are unqualified, I said that anyone who has not appied a process is most likely unqualified - just like a scientific researcher without a uni degree usually doesn't get far

I went on to say:

"Well according to you, the possibility of it being true is entirely dependant upon qualification. Thus if you were right it would be easy to work out who are the blatant fakes, and then get round to discussing evidence for 'qualified claims' later on. To do that of course one would need to know exactly what is needed to make a person "qualified" to be able to tell who is and who isn't, and who is therefore full of shit when they say god speaks to them.

If you recind your earlier statements and now say even the unqualified can engage in conversation with a god, you would need to work out how we are supposed to tell the real cases from the fraudulent ones. Content of message is really not sufficient."
and the route to getting to this point is the discussion of general principles - since you seem to indicate that it is easy to determine the general principles one applies to determine whether a person is qualified in fields beyond one's jurisdiction, and you are eager to get the ball rolling, it s not clear why you just simply don't say what the general principles are

So..

A) We would need to know exactly what is needed to make a person "qualified"
agreed

B) If the unqualified can engage in conversation with a god, we would need to work out how we are supposed to tell the real cases from the fraudulent ones.
agreed

Answers are welcome, non-answers are not. Either answer what has been posed or quit replying. I don't have the time to keep asking the same thing over and over to deaf ears.
so tell us what the general principles are you would apply to determine whether this is in fact a correct scientific diagram

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Tagesgang-luftdruck.jpg/800px-Tagesgang-luftdruck.jpg

Heh, you're not related to MewSkitty are you?

That question was meant for Bells

But It fits Lg just as well! LOL....

Heh, you're not related to MewSkitty are you?
Somehow I doubt it. My dear relative spends all her time either going to pray on people (for cash of course :mad: which I find unforgivable and absolutely disgusting ) or watching Christian cable TV and even going so far as to laying her hands on the damn TV set when they are trying to cure someone on one of those shows. It frightens the hell out of me because she was an intelligent, artistic, talented, loving and rational human being before she found God with all her zeal. Now she is just a religious nut. There is no other way to explain it. Her whole life has become God, to the detriment of everything and everyone else, including her children.

Her excuse? God told her to do it and to keep doing what she's doing. It is not only embarrassing but also terrifying. As far as we can see, the person we once knew has disappeared only to be replaced by some religious person. She is no longer who she was. She goes so far as to go up to strangers and tell them God told her something about them.

Is your answer that you can understand the processes innvolved in whatever is beyond your jurisdiction in other fields of expertise in 5 minutes. Consideringthat it usually takes 1-3 years in academies of higher education, it appears to be a tall claim.

It wasn't an "answer" to anything, it was a statement attempted, (yet again), to get you to answer the questions I have posed. Am I not making myself clear or what? Answer the questions.

As for your quote, I didn't say I could become a qualified airplane pilot in 5 minutes, but that I could know the process that a person would go through to become a pilot, (e.g he needs at least 1000 hours of flight time, a JAA approved degree in whatever etc)..

I think you're being purposely obtuse to avoid having to answer anything when I haven't even asked a great deal from you.

i agree - it is not a difficult question - but since it seems on this forum there are academic tendencies to render simple things incomprehensible, I am awaiting your answer (assuming of course you don't want to stick with your first one)

If you agree that it's not a difficult question.. answer it. What there certainly is a tendency to, it's you avoiding answering anything. Given your last bit, (including the bit in brackets), it seems you haven't even been paying attention to what's been written. I am asking you what process a man must go through to be consider 'qualified' - and thus able to communicate with god. I cannot answer that because I don't know, which is why I'm asking you, as to why you're refusing to answer.. I have no idea - unless you're too gutless to say "I don't know". What is the problem exactly?

and the route to getting to this point is the discussion of general principles - since you seem to indicate that it is easy to determine the general principles one applies to determine whether a person is qualified in fields beyond one's jurisdiction, and you are eager to get the ball rolling, it s not clear why you just simply don't say what the general principles are

It's not clear? Am I writing in Chinese? Let me make "it clear" yet again..

I want you to tell me the processes that one must go through to be considered 'qualified', (having the ability to communicate with god).

If I wanted my own answer, I'd just sit at home talking to myself. I want your answer. Do you understand that?

agreed

That... wasn't... really... an.. answer. Try again.

so tell us what the general principles are you would apply

It's like talking to a brick wall. Hello? Anybody home? Answer the damn question.

If you can't answer just say you can't. I wont laugh.

Somehow I doubt it. My dear relative spends all her time either going to pray on people (for cash of course :mad: which I find unforgivable and absolutely disgusting ) or watching Christian cable TV and even going so far as to laying her hands on the damn TV set when they are trying to cure someone on one of those shows. It frightens the hell out of me because she was an intelligent, artistic, talented, loving and rational human being before she found God with all her zeal. Now she is just a religious nut. There is no other way to explain it. Her whole life has become God, to the detriment of everything and everyone else, including her children.

Her excuse? God told her to do it and to keep doing what she's doing. It is not only embarrassing but also terrifying. As far as we can see, the person we once knew has disappeared only to be replaced by some religious person. She is no longer who she was. She goes so far as to go up to strangers and tell them God told her something about them.

You can always prove her wrong, capture it on video, and socially chastize her within the family :). All you have to do is get her to state that 'God' does not make mistakes and then catch her in the act of false assertion.

Show everyone in the family (including her) the evidence over and over and over again.

But It fits Lg just as well! LOL....

Maybe I just don't follow his posts too closely. Does he have voices talking to him? If he is schitzo and his belief is rooted in this then he's on an entirely different level in terms of being reality-challenged.

You can always prove her wrong, capture it on video, and socially chastize her within the family :). All you have to do is get her to state that 'God' does not make mistakes and then catch her in the act of false assertion.

Show everyone in the family (including her) the evidence over and over and over again.

Since when has derision changed anyone's mind?

If you think that disagreeing and offering excellent reasons for your thinking will change anyone’s mind, you might be new on this planet.- Scott Adams

I think Sam is delusional.

Since when has derision changed anyone's mind?

If you think that disagreeing and offering excellent reasons for your thinking will change anyone’s mind, you might be new on this planet.- Scott Adams

It isn't intended to change the looney's mind. Its intended to motivate the family to remove the problem from their lives and alleviate the strife.

I think Sam is delusional.

And ye're not the only one to think so! :D

Baron Max

But Geoff is also delusional.

Sort of a sticky wicket.

You can always prove her wrong, capture it on video, and socially chastize her within the family :). All you have to do is get her to state that 'God' does not make mistakes and then catch her in the act of false assertion.

Show everyone in the family (including her) the evidence over and over and over again.

We are talking about a woman who when I was quite ill in hospital with pregnancy complications when expecting my first child, decided to bring her band of merry prayers to the hospital and attempt to force some form of exorcism on my belly because she thinks that my atheism has resulted in "my spawn being the devil's spawn" and because at the time, my now husband and I were not married but were happily in a relationship together for 5 years. To say that I was upset would be an understatement. I had to buzz the nurse and they had to call security. I forgave her because she is someone I have loved since, well since I can remember and because she had always been a part of my life. Her reason? God told her my son was in danger of falling into the hands of the devil.

As an atheist, I have not baptised my son. Not too long ago at a family reunion/gathering at her home, my little boy went missing from where he had been playing with his little cousins. In our desperate search through the house and yard calling his name, I heard him crying in the bathroom. She, her husband and her friend had decided to baptise my son by locking him in the bathroom with them, filling up the bath and were attempting to immerse him into the water while chanting prayers. My son was hysterical, as was I and the rest of my family. Her brother managed to virtually open the door by forcing the lock and we all rushed in there to find my son being pushed completely under the water screaming the whole time while all of them stood there praying. Apparently God told her my son needed to be baptised or christened if the devil were not to claim him. The only thing that prevented me from calling the police and having her arrested was the look of abject horror on the face of her teenage son. Since then, she has been banned from entering my property or having contact with my son and I basically avoid attending any family gatherings if she is there. And being pregnant and not doing as well as I'd hoped with this pregnancy as well, I'd rather avoid the stress of having to be in close proximity with someone who thinks that I am some kind of evil spawn that must be saved because God told her to. I honestly do not need the stress of her delusions at the moment.

No amount of filming, derision, explaining reason or anything else will help her where she is now. I grieve the loss of someone I loved as though she had died. As in a way she has died because the person she was has disappeared. She is now a fundamentalist Christian and I actually believe that if someone told her to strap a bomb to her body to blow up the devil worshippers (atheists, muslims, or anyone who is not christian) because God gave them a message, she would actually do it.

So no, I won't show her any evidence to the contrary as it would fall on deaf ears. Any opposition she faces she blames on the work of the devil. The only voice she listens too now is the voice of God that only she can hear. Delusional? Definately yes.

It isn't intended to change the looney's mind. Its intended to motivate the family to remove the problem from their lives and alleviate the strife.

You can't "remove" a family member from your life. You can only avoid running into them or stop them from coming over.:rolleyes: Twenty years down the line though, they are still around (as I have discovered to my own chagrin).

I think Sam is delusional.

And ye're not the only one to think so! :D

Baron Max

I think all those obsessing over an unkown woman on the internet are delusional

I think all those obsessing over an unkown woman on the internet are delusional

*************
M*W: Well, I wouldn't call them "delusional," but it's quite obvious that they have too much time on their hands.

Maybe I just don't follow his posts too closely. Does he have voices talking to him? If he is schitzo and his belief is rooted in this then he's on an entirely different level in terms of being reality-challenged.
I guess you don't follow my posts too closely - usually I present a concept, along with the general principles it is built on ... also occasionally with a scriptural quote from the vedas.

The only voices I have in my head seem to say, "why do you bother responding to persons who say, "but that it total BS"?"

PS - godless's response was after I gave him an infraction for inappropriate language, so it seems that the voices he was listening to in his head were still a bit bitter.

I think all those obsessing over an unkown woman on the internet are delusional

Darn right they are.

But I heard there were booby pics. :bugeye:

I think all those obsessing over an unkown woman on the internet are delusional

Hold on a second here: over 10k posts in just over 10 months? That's a thousand posts a month, or over 30/day. I assume you have to sleep, so that's about two posts per hour on average.

And you're calling me obsessed? Physician, heal thyself.

You should get into something less addictive, like EverQuest or online gambling.

You can't "remove" a family member from your life. You can only avoid running into them or stop them from coming over.:rolleyes: Twenty years down the line though, they are still around (as I have discovered to my own chagrin).

You can make the family member want to remove themself until the time the person gets their shit together. If everyone in a family turns against a member, they will be accelerated into confronting reality.

We are talking about a woman who when I was quite ill in hospital with pregnancy complications when expecting my first child, decided to bring her band of merry prayers to the hospital and attempt to force some form of exorcism on my belly because she thinks that my atheism has resulted in "my spawn being the devil's spawn" and because at the time, my now husband and I were not married but were happily in a relationship together for 5 years. To say that I was upset would be an understatement. I had to buzz the nurse and they had to call security. I forgave her because she is someone I have loved since, well since I can remember and because she had always been a part of my life. Her reason? God told her my son was in danger of falling into the hands of the devil.

As an atheist, I have not baptised my son. Not too long ago at a family reunion/gathering at her home, my little boy went missing from where he had been playing with his little cousins. In our desperate search through the house and yard calling his name, I heard him crying in the bathroom. She, her husband and her friend had decided to baptise my son by locking him in the bathroom with them, filling up the bath and were attempting to immerse him into the water while chanting prayers. My son was hysterical, as was I and the rest of my family. Her brother managed to virtually open the door by forcing the lock and we all rushed in there to find my son being pushed completely under the water screaming the whole time while all of them stood there praying. Apparently God told her my son needed to be baptised or christened if the devil were not to claim him. The only thing that prevented me from calling the police and having her arrested was the look of abject horror on the face of her teenage son. Since then, she has been banned from entering my property or having contact with my son and I basically avoid attending any family gatherings if she is there. And being pregnant and not doing as well as I'd hoped with this pregnancy as well, I'd rather avoid the stress of having to be in close proximity with someone who thinks that I am some kind of evil spawn that must be saved because God told her to. I honestly do not need the stress of her delusions at the moment.

No amount of filming, derision, explaining reason or anything else will help her where she is now. I grieve the loss of someone I loved as though she had died. As in a way she has died because the person she was has disappeared. She is now a fundamentalist Christian and I actually believe that if someone told her to strap a bomb to her body to blow up the devil worshippers (atheists, muslims, or anyone who is not christian) because God gave them a message, she would actually do it.

So no, I won't show her any evidence to the contrary as it would fall on deaf ears. Any opposition she faces she blames on the work of the devil. The only voice she listens too now is the voice of God that only she can hear. Delusional? Definately yes.

Like I told Sam, the intent is not to change her mind. The intent is to motivate your family (and yourself) to remove the problem.

I guess you don't follow my posts too closely - usually I present a concept, along with the general principles it is built on ... also occasionally with a scriptural quote from the vedas.

The only voices I have in my head seem to say, "why do you bother responding to persons who say, "but that it total BS"?"

Maybe some day the question will be asked if there is any objective evidence for the objective assertions being made.


PS - godless's response was after I gave him an infraction for inappropriate language, so it seems that the voices he was listening to in his head were still a bit bitter.

heh. this infraction system is funny. It amazes me so many people care about it.

Hold on a second here: over 10k posts in just over 10 months? That's a thousand posts a month, or over 30/day. I assume you have to sleep, so that's about two posts per hour on average.

And you're calling me obsessed? Physician, heal thyself.

You should get into something less addictive, like EverQuest or online gambling.

You're ascribing me with too much careful thought. Trolling is faster than you think.:D

Wouldn't even realise how much it was if leo did not keep reminding me!

Maybe some day the question will be asked if there is any objective evidence for the objective assertions being made.
well until then I guess we will just have to perceive everyone's posts as mere voices in our head



heh. this infraction system is funny. It amazes me so many people care about it.
woah!
steady on there or someone will give you an infraction for blaspheming the infraction system

*************
M*W: No. Thinking is one's own thoughts. That's different than hearing "voices" in one's head. When people hear "voices" in their heads, it's some other voice telling them this or that. It's not their own thoughts.


Could, theoretically speaking, our thoughts not be a kind of trickle down effect of a higher being? How do we know our thoughts are truly not the thoughts of someone else.... Think of it as our bodies are robots in a form... and our thoughts is part of our soul.... Some one may very well have more than one soul in their body... and hypothetically, I don't want to offend anyone, if God does exist, then why wouldn't he want to talk to us?

Could, theoretically speaking, our thoughts not be a kind of trickle down effect of a higher being?

If we were to consider this option I would be very worried. Every minute around the world there's rape/murder/theft and whatever else apparently not thought up by the person but by a god. What would that say of this god where he puts thought of rape and murder in people's heads?

Let's not forget the serial killer "Son of Sam" heard voices in his head and we all know how this story turned out.:eek:

well until then I guess we will just have to perceive everyone's posts as mere voices in our head

Who said that?




woah!
steady on there or someone will give you an infraction for blaspheming the infraction system

hmmm... a religious infraction system... wonder if thats been done?

Could, theoretically speaking, our thoughts not be a kind of trickle down effect of a higher being? How do we know our thoughts are truly not the thoughts of someone else.... Think of it as our bodies are robots in a form... and our thoughts is part of our soul.... Some one may very well have more than one soul in their body... and hypothetically, I don't want to offend anyone, if God does exist, then why wouldn't he want to talk to us?

*************
M*W: "Trickle down effect," I don't think so. That would be kinda scary to be a messenger of a higher being. I want to know for sure that what I'm thinking are my own thoughts, so when I voice them. I'm pretty confident that my thoughts are my own, and I refuse to be anyone's robot.

Also, if there were a soul, it is what I would call bioelectric energy which is physically natural and in no way supernatural. With that said, I don't believe there are necessarily individual forces of energy but one life force (bioelectric energy) that never dies but returns to the whole.

What I am understanding that you are saying reflects more on those individuals who hear voices in their heads that aren't their own. Schizophrenics have such thoughts that plague them oftentimes. But there are those schizophrenic thoughts that the beholder seems to be comfortable with.

Anytime someone feels they have thoughts that aren't their own, they really should seek psychiatric help. There are medications that work wonders on these types of delusions.

I am an atheist. Therefore, I don't believe a god exists, so no supernatural entity can get into my head and take over my thoughts. This actually works as effectively or even better than psychiatric medication.

Hey Med Woman, I asked you this before, but you never responded, must be a hard one, do you have a conscience?

Who said that?
the voices in your head, because there is no objective evidence that I am existing





hmmm... a religious infraction system... wonder if thats been done?
while establishing the parameters of one's false ego as sacred is certainly a popular contemporary religion, I would hardly declare it as bonafide
:p

must be a hard one, do you have a conscience?

I do, if that's of any help.

Still waiting on Med Woman.

the voices in your head, because there is no objective evidence that I am existing

The voices in my head tell me that there is plenty of objective evidence that you exist. Do your voices tell you otherwise? Does your voice like Ricola?



while establishing the parameters of one's false ego as sacred is certainly a popular contemporary religion, I would hardly declare it as bonafide
:p

Careful, you might get an infraction.

Hey Med Woman, I asked you this before, but you never responded, must be a hard one, do you have a conscience?

*************
M*W: Sorry, I must have missed you, but you were on ignore. I believe all humans and maybe even some higher animals have a conscience. I believe we all innately have a sense of right and wrong. Animals, vegetables and minerals, newborn babies and small children, are all atheists like me.

A one year old human has a conscience? Wrong.

A one year old human has a conscience? Wrong.

*************
M*W: A one-year old has a one-year old conscious. I've delivered thousands of babies, and I can guarantee you that the first thing they do when they're first born is cry. The second thing they do is breathe. The third thing they do is learn to manipulate. So, yes, they do have a conscience.

Manipulation is evidence for a lack of conscience, you've got it all backwards.

Manipulation is evidence for a lack of conscience, you've got it all backwards.

*************
M*W: It works both ways. A child or an adult who does not manipulate is probably brain dead.

*************
M*W: A one-year old has a one-year old conscious. I've delivered thousands of babies, and I can guarantee you that the first thing they do when they're first born is cry. The second thing they do is breathe. The third thing they do is learn to manipulate. So, yes, they do have a conscience.
That would have to be the truest and most honest thing I have seen written about babies! Beautiful!:)

A one year old human has a conscience? Wrong.
Why not? My 15 month old has one and acts like he does.. sometimes. Sometimes he simply does not care if he knows he's doing something wrong and will do it anyway. Until he gets caught and then he looks quite guilty. He's also quite sneaky. So yes, I would definately say that one year old's have a conscience. Sometimes they listen to it and sometimes they prefer to ignore it. Most timest hey just ignore it and go what they heck.

For example, my son knows it is wrong to use his tonka truck to roll sand in from his sandbox into the living room. So he only attempts to do it when he thinks we aren't watching him. As soon as he looks up and realises we are looking at him, he veers the truck away from the living room door and toddles back to the sandpit looking back at us. If we look away from him, he turns the truck right back around again and pushes it really fast for the living room door.. until he sees us looking at him again. We don't even have to say a word. Sometimes we watch him and then turn away on purpose just to see how sneaky he actually is. So he goes back and forth with a tonka tip truck full of sand trying to sneak past us into the living room.:)

[QUOTE=Bells;1262229]That would have to be the truest and most honest thing I have seen written about babies! Beautiful!:)

*************
M*W: Thanks, Bells. That's when they're the cutest! When their conscience is showing their thoughts! I can just see your little guy with his Tonka truck full of sand trying to sneak it into the living room knowing full well he's not supposed to! They do try, you know. I guess that is the ultimate show of their will, but work hard to change it, don't we?

Toddlers are sneaky only because they don't like to be reprimanded, no sense of right and wrong there, just staying out of trouble.

Toddlers are sneaky only because they don't like to be reprimanded, no sense of right and wrong there, just staying out of trouble.

*************
M*W: No one likes to be reprimanded. That's just human nature. If a child is staying out of trouble, they have a conscience. They do have a sense of right and wrong. It's old grumpy farts that have no conscience.

If a toddler is staying out of trouble, he is avoiding a punishment, no conscience involved there, old fart.

No one likes to be reprimanded. That's just human nature. If a child is staying out of trouble, they have a conscience. They do have a sense of right and wrong.

Yeah, that's the voices in their heads telling them what not to do!

It's old grumpy farts that have no conscience.

Are you lumping all of us old farts into one basket?

Baron Max

Tikes stay out of trouble to avoid punishment, only later do they understand why there is a right and wrong thing to do.

Tikes stay out of trouble to avoid punishment, only later do they understand why there is a right and wrong thing to do.

*************
M*W: I hope you are nobody's father.

Many of your hopes are unfulfilled I'm sure.

Many of your hopes are unfulfilled I'm sure.

*************
M*W: Actually, no. I've done it all.

So when are YOU leaving?

Tikes stay out of trouble to avoid punishment, only later do they understand why there is a right and wrong thing to do.
You obviously don't have children. If you did, you would understand and know that children do know the difference between right and wrong. It does show conscience and a lack of when they so choose.

We also know the difference between right and wrong and the reason we know is that when we do something wrong, we too are reprimanded and or punished. Now does conscience come into being when the notion of punishment for wrong doing becomes understood? Another topic altogether.

Everyone is born without a conscience. It is learnt. Knowing the difference between right and wrong is something that is taught from the moment you are born. It is not inate. We aren't born knowing what's right and what's wrong. Everything you know, say and do was learnt in some way or another.

So when are YOU leaving?

*************
M*W: When there are no more christians in the world.

That'll be forever.

Medicine,
What if they are perceiving something, and they only call it God because that's what it most closely resembles in their culture.

In China, He's called Shang Ti.

The voices in my head tell me that there is plenty of objective evidence that you exist. Do your voices tell you otherwise?


then it seems that you have answered your original q

Maybe some day the question will be asked if there is any objective evidence for the objective assertions being made.

*************
M*W: When there are no more christians in the world.

Good unspecified deity, MW - why the hate?

Everyone is born without a conscience. It is learnt. Knowing the difference between right and wrong is something that is taught from the moment you are born. It is not inate. We aren't born knowing what's right and what's wrong. Everything you know, say and do was learnt in some way or another.

Now that! is something I've debated a few times. Tabula Raza. You are quite correct, we are born an empty slate, every creature, that lives does not come with innate knowledge. Such as instincts. Everything is learned, from the weaving bird, weaving his nest, to the baby learning to walk.

then it seems that you have answered your original q

Maybe some day the question will be asked if there is any objective evidence for the objective assertions being made.

It doesn't matter if I'm asking or answering the question. They are intended for the theist.

It doesn't matter if I'm asking or answering the question. They are intended for the theist.
how objective of you
:D

That'll be forever.

*************
M*W: Then I guess I'll live forever, but I'm not going to hold my breath because christianity is dying worldwide. Even the christian leaders say so, and they're worried about it. See Christianity Today (you can find the issue(s) on the web, but I know you're too lazy to look them up. This is information you stay away from, because you're brainwashed to avoid it.

Just so we're clear on things, my personal mission is to rid the world of evil christianity.

Medicine, What if they are perceiving something, and they only call it God because that's what it most closely resembles in their culture.

*************
M*W: Thanks for the question, spidergoat. I completely agree with you that if their perception of "god" is ingrained in their culture, it would be an heroic venture to try and convince them otherwise. Take the Mayans and Aztecs, for instance. Their culture believed the sun was god, so they built pyramids to reach on high so they could please their god (just like the ancient Egyptians). They sacrificed humans at the altar at the top of the pyramids, because this is what they THOUGHT their god wanted to provide them with crops and sustenance. So, their culture was tantamount to their "religion." In fact, it would be difficult to distinguish between culture and religion in those societies.

I hope I've answered your question.

Good unspecified deity, MW - why the hate?

*************
M*W: GeoffP, if it was "hate," then I'd say I was out to kill them all. I have no desire to kill people, I just want to destroy the lies they believe.

It is said there is a function in our brains that allows for modelling the behavior of others, called "mirror neurons", often deficient in autistic people. What if religion is a way of creating a model human in our brains as a way of percieving our own subconscious intuition?

*************
M*W: GeoffP, if it was "hate," then I'd say I was out to kill them all. I have no desire to kill people, I just want to destroy the lies they believe.

Well, that still seems a bit extreme. I find that the Christian belief system isn't too objectionable. Bit preachy maybe. Of course, there's been poor application at times, but I don't find them the worst offenders overall.

Bonne soiree.

:m:

GeoffP: Well, that still seems a bit extreme. I find that the Christian belief system isn't too bjectionable. Bit preachy maybe. Of course, there's been poor application at times, but I don't find them the worst offenders overall.
Bonne soiree.

:m:[/QUOTE]
*************
M*W: There are no accidents in the univese.

Bonne soiree.

:m:
*************
M*W: There are no accidents in the univese.[/QUOTE]

that concept's a prerequisite for atheism

Isn't everything an accident in atheism?

Isn't everything an accident in atheism?
Everything except the ideology of atheism apparently

Isn't everything an accident in atheism?

Most certainy not. For one The evolutionary process was intrinsically bound to happen once life began to replicate and compete.

*************
M*W: We've heard it time and again. Some of the christians on this forum hear the voice of god in their heads. They've admitted it. They believe it. They worship it.

I call this a delusion. They're sick people. They don't have enough knowledge to debate issues on the validity of christianity. They believe blindly in something they cannot explain.

I say that when a christian comes on board and states that he/she hears god's voice in their heads, they should be banned permanently. This is not logical nor is it reasonable. Sane people do not hear voices in their heads. After all, this is a scientific forum. Hearing voices in one's head is not scientifically validated. I think this would stop the preaching once and for all. There is no room for blind belief in this forum. Hearing voices in one's head is not rational. It's insane. This is a scientific forum. Anyone hearing voices in their head should be permanently banned. Those who profess hearing god's voice in their heads should go to a christian forum where they won't be questioned, and where there no debate is required to prove those voices are real.

Am I alone here, or do you agree?

Who are you to pass judgement on what someone believes to be true? How rational is the thought that someone should be excommunicated from society for simply believing in a god's ability to communicate with them? As odd as you may think it to be, people have a right to believe what they want - the same right you excersise when you call them on it. They have a right to follow whatever they want in life - as do you. If they have chosen to follow Christiannity - so be it. It is not your place to try and peg them as secondary citizen's because they choose to worship how they will.

People have the right to excersise choice, you must respect that - even if it pains you so.

People have the right to excersise choice, you must respect that - even if it pains you so.but when that believe threatens your safety, should you not be allowed to live in peace, should you not be allowed to remove the offender from society, the religious threaten the lives of the multitude everyday, because they unfortunately control a lot of the govenments, many innocents are killed, because delusional religious nutters believe they are doing the right thing for their god.

but when that believe threatens your safety, should you not be allowed to live in peace, should you not be allowed to remove the offender from society, the religious threaten the lives of the multitude everyday, because they unfortunately control a lot of the govenments, many innocents are killed, because delusional religious nutters believe they are doing the right thing for their god.

So everyone who hears god in their heads are causing the deaths of innocents? If someone chooses to let god become a part of their life - I have no problem with that. However, when this part of their life threatens the lives of others, it should be dealt with just like anything else that would threaten someone's life - in that sense I agree.

However, as far as the OP went was simply a 'christian god' speaking to a follower of said religion. What's the problem? If they choose to accept the voice of god, that's all there is to it. You can harass them as much as you want, but it remains their choice, not yours.

So everyone who hears god in their heads are causing the deaths of innocents?

Ever heard of Ted Bundy?

Ever heard of Ted Bundy?

We could take that all over the religious spectrum.

If you talk to God, you are praying;
If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia.

If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist;
If God talks to you, you are a schizophrenic.


--Thomas S. Szasz

If you talk to God, you are praying;
If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia.

If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist;
If God talks to you, you are a schizophrenic.


--Thomas S. Szasz

Its not clear why god could not talk to someone - of course being a psychiatrist and a questionable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szasz)one at that), and also a stauch anti-monotheist , its understandable how Mr Szasz could be judging monotheism by its worst stereotype (people suffering from schizophrenia) to reinforce his stereotypical views

Would we lay as a condition for understanding genetics that equal creedence be given to schizophrenics who talk about about genetics?

Would we lay as a condition for understanding genetics that equal creedence be given to schizophrenics who talk about about genetics?

Of course not, that is a pathetic comparison, for reasons a 7 year old child would understand, but you remain ignorant to.

Its not clear why god could not talk to someone

It is subjective! even atheist can loose their minds! and hear the voice of Madalyn Murray O'Hair if they become schizophrenic! :D

mabufo: ho are you to pass judgement on what someone believes to be true? How rational is the thought that someone should be excommunicated from society for simply believing in a god's ability to communicate with them? As odd as you may think it to be, people have a right to believe what they want - the same right you excersise when you call them on it. They have a right to follow whatever they want in life - as do you. If they have chosen to follow Christiannity - so be it. It is not your place to try and peg them as secondary citizen's because they choose to worship how they will.

People have the right to excersise choice, you must respect that - even if it pains you so.[/QUOTE]

*************
M*W: Your reading comprehension is lacking. There's a big difference from someone who has faith in a belief who practices whatever religion they want to, and someone who hears voices in their head they say is the voice of god! This is not passing judgment or excommunicating them from society. They are mentally ill and they need serious psychiatric help!

I would advocate the rights of people, even christians, but there has to be a line drawn between fantasy and reality.

I replied to a poster who said he heard god's voice talking to him telling him what to do and who to be around. Wouldn't one's on conscience tell a person that?

We see it all too often here on sciforums -- people who hear god's voice in their heads. It is these same people who cannot discuss issues of their religion without getting judgmental themselves! In fact, they simply cannot discuss anything in a logical or reasonable manner or offer anykind of intellectual discussion about their religion. Whatever god tells them in their heads, that's what they believe, even presented with evidence to the contrary, they can't accept anything other than their brainwashing.

People can follow whatever they wish, but when they start saying that they hear voices in their heads, there is no point in them being on sciforums. They're incapable of honest debate, and seeing as how this is a SCIENCE FORUM, they are in a place where religion IS debated. It is my opinion that those individuals who are suffering from mental illnesses shouldn't be allowed to participate in religious discussion. They are already mentally fragile, and someone might post something that would send them off the deep end.

As for you, is there anything that you would like to discuss regarding religion, or are you here to join the ranks of the christian martyrs?

As for you, is there anything that you would like to discuss regarding religion, or are you here to join the ranks of the christian martyrs?

When did I say I was a Christian? It seems to me like you are the one with some sort of bias on the subject of god and Christianity.

They're incapable of honest debate, and seeing as how this is a SCIENCE FORUM, they are in a place where religion IS debated.
You huge bias aside, wouldn't you say that's a bit of a contradiction? Who would you debate religion with if you had your way?

You speak about Christianity like it's an affliction, when in reality it's something that people choose for themselves, just as you chose the path of harassing them for it. In fact, your whole argument is so incredibly ridiculous - I thought at first, it was a joke. The very idea that Chrisitians suffer from a mental illness on account of being practicioners of a faith that they chose, is insane.

You need to excersise a little more self control with your opinions.

You speak about Christianity like it's an affliction, when in reality it's something that people choose for themselves, just as you chose the path of harassing them for it.

Have you ever picked up a history book? The ones doing the harrasing, killing, tourturing are and have been mindless theist zealots!

In fact, your whole argument is so incredibly ridiculous - I thought at first, it was a joke.

this only shows your lack of reading comprehencion!

thought at first, it was a joke. The very idea that Chrisitians suffer from a mental illness on account of being practicioners of a faith that they chose, is insane.


Like she asked, and I ask again, re-read the opening post! your lack understanding the English language or what?

Yeah, nevermind that you can't spell comprehension.

See I type about 65 wpm, so no my typing is not FUCKING perfect! get it?

- as do you. If they have chosen to follow Christiannity - .

Tut tut.... It looks like we have a christian that can't even spell christianity.:eek:

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.

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...'

It is subjective! even atheist can loose their minds! and hear the voice of Madalyn Murray O'Hair if they become schizophrenic! :D

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)

If you know it dont exist, then you know what it is:eek: then it exists

Most certainy not. For one The evolutionary process was intrinsically bound to happen once life began to replicate and compete.

Balls to that. There's no predetermination to random end-forms.

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).


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!

Conceptually; why would the most significant, superior being in the universe want to talk to a mere, mortal insignificant to it's stature?
Kings don't usually talk to street sweepers, but it has been known to occur

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?
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

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!
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

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!
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 don't usually talk to street sweepers, but it has been known to occur

Kings were not mythical entities of ancient humans, we actually have evidence/proof that kings existed! ;)

the evidence lies in meeting certain standards of perception

DELUSIONS!

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


Non-sequirtus drible again Lg! The emperical evidence of water, is evident, the claimed hypothesis of a supreme entity is not!

given that it is impossible for empiricism to leave the realms of ignorance

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!!!

the unknown will always be a concommitant factor for the progress of empiricism), you cannot say "No" with resounding confidence

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
“
Kings don't usually talk to street sweepers, but it has been known to occur
”
Kings were not mythical entities of ancient humans, we actually have evidence/proof that kings existed!
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

“
the evidence lies in meeting certain standards of perception
”
DELUSIONS!
then maybe you can establish how one can perceive any type of evidence without coming to a standard of perception/education

“
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
”
Non-sequirtus drible again Lg! The emperical evidence of water, is evident, the claimed hypothesis of a supreme entity is not!
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)

“
given that it is impossible for empiricism to leave the realms of ignorance
”
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!!!
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)

“
the unknown will always be a concommitant factor for the progress of empiricism), you cannot say "No" with resounding confidence
”
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.
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)

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)?
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)

Balls to that. There's no predetermination to random end-forms.

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.

Good job mate. Even though your assumption is dead wrong - thanks for correcting my spelling.[/b]
You're welcome.:)
Its funny how so many that tout the christian way these days, are not actually christians .