People who believe in god are broken

[iNow]

Are you really suggesting that there is no relevant difference between my 10 year old niece and a person who believes dogs are telling him to kill people?

In this context, yes. I am really suggesting that. There are no relevant functional differences in the nature of the belief itself, and that is the focus of the discussion here. It's merely that one of those beliefs is more societally accepted than the other. The content is equally specious, though, and hence the thinking equally broken.

 

Assuming that you think that someone who believes dogs are telling him to kill people is mentally ill, then you are equating 'People who have a belief in God that may turn out to be wrong' with 'the mentally ill'.

Correct, especially since mental illness exists along a spectrum and is not some binary "either/or" state.

 

The OP implies ALL who believe in God are broken

Correct.

Edited June 14, 2012 by iNow

[zapatos]

I can't remember if we covered this. Do you think that kids who believe in Santa Claus are broken?

[John Cuthber]

I can't remember if we covered this. Do you think that kids who believe in Santa Claus are broken?

No, they are mislead.

But if, in spite of finding out that he's just a way that parents bribe their kids into being good (making a list, and checking it twice) they grow up and continue to believe in him, then they are broken.

 

Of course, kids are often mistaken about things because they simply don't know any better.

Not so much "broken" as "not yet fully built".

Edited June 14, 2012 by John Cuthber

[iNow]

I do, however, like how zapatos has finally acquiesced and seen how belief in santa is functionally equivalent to belief in god(s).

[zapatos]

No, they are mislead.

But if, in spite of finding out that he's just a way that parents bribe their kids into being good (making a list, and checking it twice) they grow up and continue to believe in him, then they are broken.

 

Of course, kids are often mistaken about things because they simply don't know any better.

Not so much "broken" as "not yet fully built".

Does this then suggest that belief in God does not imply a child is broken at least until they reach that same point in time when they should figure out Santa?

 

I do, however, like how zapatos has finally acquiesced and seen how belief in santa is functionally equivalent to belief in god(s).

You got that out of me asking you a question?

 

Actually I think we'd find a lot to agree on if you'd give in and add some contraints. Although the conversation might not be as much fun then.

Edited June 14, 2012 by zapatos

[MonDie]

Who are you equating with the mentally ill?

He was equating them with David Berkowitz. However, if you want to argue that David Berkowitz was mentally ill in a way that religious people aren't, that would be on topic.

I recall Iggy comparing religious people to insane people that have the potential to turn evil at the drop of a hat. My only modifications to that idea would be that it probably depends on the current power of one's faith in a religious leader, and it might depend on one's tendency toward thinking critically since a critical thinker is less likely to establish faith.

 

 

People who have a belief in God that may turn out to be wrong, or people who have a belief in scientific theories that may turn out to be wrong?

People who have a belief in God that may turn out to be is probably wrong and who deny that they could be wrong about particular things (e.g. the existence of God), or people who have a belief believe in scientific theories that may turn out to be probably aren't wrong and who are always willing to let go of their beliefs if emerging evidence overwhelmingly contradicts them?

 

fify

Edited June 14, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[zapatos]

He was equating them with David Berkowitz. However, if you want to argue that David Berkowitz was mentally ill in a way that religious people aren't, that would be on topic.

He was equating who with David Berkowitz? I'm guessing he meant theists but it could have been the others. And yes, I believe that neither group could be considered menatlly ill in the way DB is.

 

People who have a belief in God that may turn out to be is probably wrong and who deny that they could be wrong, or people who have a belief believe in scientific theories that may turn out to be probably aren't wrong and who are willing to let go of their beliefs if emerging evidence overwhelmingly contradicts them?

 

fify

Yeah! That's what I'm looking for. When you put it that way it is obvious you have a big difference between the two groups. Another good example would be:

 

People who have a belief in God that is probably wrong and who are willing to let go of their beliefs in the face of convincing argument, or people who believe in scientific theories that are probably wrong and who deny that they could be wrong.

 

IMO, in this example it is clearly the 'scientific theory' believers who are more likely broken. And this is my point. The simple belief in God is not in itself enough to prove you are 'broken'. You must also consider other factors, such as unwillingness to use reason, ignoring evidence, maturity, education, etc.

[MonDie]

I have another small quibble about the post I quoted. The distinction between a fundamentalist and a scientist is not that only one believes IN scientific theories, but that only one believes scientific theories. Hence, I edited my post further.

 

People who have a belief in God that is probably wrong and who are willing to let go of their beliefs in the face of convincing argument, or people who believe in scientific theories that are probably wrong and who deny that they could be wrong.

I think this isn't generally applicable, although you could argue otherwise.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[zapatos]

I have another small quibble. The distinction between a fundamentalist and a scientist is not that only one believes IN scientific theories, but that only one believes scientific theories.

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here, but if you are only talking about fundamentalists then we will be arguing past each other anyway. The OP refers to all people who believe in God, not just fundamentalists.

 

I don't think this isn't generally applicable, although you could argue otherwise.

Why wouldn't it be applicable?

[John Cuthber]

Does this then suggest that belief in God does not imply a child is broken at least until they reach that same point in time when they should figure out Santa?

 

Roughly.

The misinformation about God is a lot more widespread. Also kids grow up at different rates.

But, by the time they are old enough to make their own decisions about things in general, they really ought to have noticed the lack of evidence for their invisible friends.

[MonDie]

Why wouldn't it be applicable?

Scientists are encouraged to think critically, and religious followers are encouraged to have blind-faith.

 

EDIT: I made a mistakenly inaccurate double negative! I will never forgive myself!

 

EDIT: Never!

Edited June 14, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[doG]

Scientists are encouraged to think critically, and religious followers are encouraged to have blind-faith.

I usually state that as,

 

Science is about the facts, regardless of belief and religion is about belief, regardless of the facts!

[zapatos]

Scientists are encouraged to think critically, and religious followers are encouraged to have blind-faith.

I agree that generally scientists will think more critically than non-scientists, although plenty of theists think critically, plenty of scientists have 'undue' confidence in their field of work, and of course there are plenty of scientist/theists.

 

I feel confident that I can find people who have a belief in God that is probably wrong and who are willing to let go of their beliefs in the face of convincing argument, and people who believe in scientific theories that are probably wrong and who deny that they could be wrong.

[Moontanman]

He was equating who with David Berkowitz? I'm guessing he meant theists but it could have been the others. And yes, I believe that neither group could be considered menatlly ill in the way DB is.

 

So where is the cut off point? A great many religious people kill at gods command, i would say significantly more than people who kill because a dog told them to.

 

Didn't he also claim that the dog was Satan or something similar or that Satan was talking to him through the dog?

[zapatos]

So where is the cut off point? A great many religious people kill at gods command, i would say significantly more than people who kill because a dog told them to.

I don't know where the cut off point is but I assume it is something covered by the American Phychiatric Association. I know next to nothing about psychiatry but I assume that someone who hears a dog speaking to him in English is generally considered to have some kind of mental defect. I don't believe that there is a mental disorder defined for people based on a belief in God.

[Moontanman]

I don't know where the cut off point is but I assume it is something covered by the American Phychiatric Association. I know next to nothing about psychiatry but I assume that someone who hears a dog speaking to him in English is generally considered to have some kind of mental defect. I don't believe that there is a mental disorder defined for people based on a belief in God.

 

 

Can anyone say B R O K E N ? My point is that Berkowitz's murders were in fact religious in nature, his religious insanity made him believe in the religious mythos so strongly that he believed Satan Was commanding him through a dog. Dog is God Backwards....

Edited June 14, 2012 by Moontanman

[zapatos]

Can anyone say B R O K E N ? My point is that Berkowitz's murders were in fact religious in nature, his religious insanity made him believe in the religious mythos so strongly that he believed Satan Was commanding him through a dog. Dog is God Backwards....

I think we are all in agreement that Berkowitz is broken. Are you suggesting that this somehow indicates that others are broken?

[iNow]

That's not the question I would ask. I'm curious to hear how him hearing instructions from dogs is supposed to be any different than people hearing instructions from god(s). I'm curious to know why you feel belief that dogs are telling you something constitutes mental illness but belief that gods are telling you something does not.

 

At least dogs can be shown to exist.

[zapatos]

That's not the question I would ask. I'm curious to hear how him hearing instructions from dogs is supposed to be any different than people hearing instructions from god(s). I'm curious to know why you feel belief that dogs are telling you something constitutes mental illness but belief that gods are telling you something does not.

 

At least dogs can be shown to exist.

I think that hearing instructions, whether from gods or dogs, is an indicator of mental illness. Do you think most theists hear instructions from God? I for one have never known a theist who made that claim.

[Iggy]

Who are you equating with the mentally ill?

Osama Bin Laden. His religious beliefs were real enough and devout enough to make him mentally ill.

 

But, you are the one equating them. You are the one equating every single unverified belief and saying that they are all equally broken. You are the one that said:

 

Everyone on this site believes in something. If you are broken for believing in God then you are broken for believing in anything else that could turn out to be untrue.

I'll just repeat your point. Berkowitz believed something that "could turn out to be untrue" and religious people are just as broken as Berkowitz. It is your point. You equated them. Don't lay it at my feet.

 

As an example, if a theist has no knowledge of the tons of research and the confluence of research supporting a scientific theory, for that person it can be considered not to exist. It therefore would put belief of God and belief of that scientific theory on the same footing. You cannot fault someone for equating the likelihood of the Big Bang and the likelihood of God if he knows of the exact same amount of support for both (i.e. Nothing).

You're wide of the mark, and I think you know it.

 

People who believe in God know that faith trumps evidence. Even if the world is proven round they know god isn't proven wrong and they can still believe. If evolution is found true they can still believe in god. Nothing in the world of evidence can disprove their belief in god.

 

People who believe in the big bang know it is dependent on evidence. They know observation can prove it wrong.

 

Everything I just said holds true even for people who have never read the bible or any material about the big bang. Their ignorance doesn't change the fact that these two beliefs have an entirely different character.

Edited June 15, 2012 by Iggy

[zapatos]

Osama Bin Laden. His religious beliefs were real enough and devout enough to make him mentally ill.

Do you have any evidence of this claim?

 

But, you are the one equating them. You are the one equating every single unverified belief and saying that they are all equally broken. You are the one that said:

I am not equating any beliefs. I am equating people.

 

I'll just repeat your point. Berkowitz believed something that "could turn out to be untrue" and religious people are just as broken as Berkowitz. It is your point. You equated them. Don't lay it at my feet.

I never claimed religious people are just as broken as Berkowitz. You may wish to reread post #1033 where I specifically said they were not just as broken as Berkowitz: "And yes, I believe that neither group could be considered menatlly ill in the way DB is."

 

As far as 'laying it at your feet', I have no idea what you are talking about. I simply asked you one question to clarify what you were saying.

 

You're wide of the mark, and I think you know it.

Think again.

 

People who believe in God know that faith trumps evidence. Even if the world is proven round they know god isn't proven wrong and they can still believe. If evolution is found true they can still believe in god. Nothing in the world of evidence can disprove their belief in god.

I agree that you cannot prove God false. He's supernatural, and by definition you cannot prove or disprove his existence. On the other hand, the preponderence of the evidence against him can and does cause many to become atheists.

 

People who believe in the big bang know it is dependent on evidence. They know observation can prove it wrong.

Again, by definition of 'theory' I agree with that.

 

Everything I just said holds true even for people who have never read the bible or any material about the big bang. Their ignorance doesn't change the fact that these two beliefs have an entirely different character.

Yes they have a different character, but that difference is not necessarily known by the person in question. And if you don't know there is a difference then it is reasonable to equate them.

[Iggy]

I never claimed religious people are just as broken as Berkowitz.

Someone who believes in a theistic god is certainly not as broken as someone who thinks their neighbor's dog is telling them to kill? Is that what you assert?

Edited June 15, 2012 by Iggy

[zapatos]

Someone who believes in a theistic god is certainly not as broken as someone who thinks their neighbor's dog is telling them to kill? Is that what you assert?

Just to avoid mistakes, when you say 'theistic god', are you saying a god that is all good, all knowing, etc.? If so, then yes with a clarification.

 

I am asserting that belief in a theistic god in and of itself, does not make someone as broken as someone else who believes their neighbor's dog is telling them to kill. I think that if other factors were included for the theist then possibly they could be as broken as a Berkowitz type. For example, a theist who also hears god talking to him is probably just as broken.

[Moontanman]

I think that hearing instructions, whether from gods or dogs, is an indicator of mental illness. Do you think most theists hear instructions from God? I for one have never known a theist who made that claim.

 

 

WOW! we must live on different planets, know almost no theists who do not make that claim....

[zapatos]

WOW! we must live on different planets, know almost no theists who do not make that claim....

No kidding? My theists are mostly Catholic, what are yours? And do they claim to literally hear instructions, or is it more of a figurative instruction, as in 'being a teacher is God's calling for me'?