Religious fervor or mental illness?

[Muffled]

Thanks for sharing. I have no intention of labeling people who have had a profound spiritual or religious experience 'mentally ill' - I don't believe that to be the case (at least not necessarily and not always). What I am trying to get at is the similarities in the mental aspects of religious experiences and other mental experiences that don't necessarily have a religious element or focus. You have brought in an important aspect - do these experiences really come from "out there" in the way you described - or are they purely 'mental' - arising as a result of particular responses of the brain to particular stimuli? What evidence is there that there is a genuine 'spiritual' connection with a 'greater reality' (God or spirits or demons...whatever)?

I believe there is no outward evidence. I believe it is a matter of knowing the sources of information that comes to the brain. For instance if I read a book I know the information comes from the book not my brain.

 

[JustWondering]

It might not make sense to you, but it does to me. Just because a rock might have existed for all eternity does not make it capable of ID. Ergo . ..
So, we all have our own perspectives.

Purposeful ignorance isn't my thing, that's why I can't share your perspective.

 

[siti]

For instance if I read a book I know the information comes from the book not my brain.

This is an interesting diversion. Do you really know that? Suppose a key word in the passage you are reading means something other than what you think it means - does the information received come from the symbols on the page or from our brain interpreting those symbols? I guess you can see where I am going with this...if such a simple thing as reading a word on a page depends entirely on our brain correctly (or incorrectly) interpreting what we see (or hear, touch, smell...etc.) how can we be sure that our interpretation of dreams, visions and revelations is reliable?

 

[ChristineM]

Truly, you are skating on no ice at all, just being kept up out of water by your beliefs.

When people claim on one side that a singularity exploded, (black holes don't explode as a rule), and this became our universe, out of nothing, that this created out of chaos all things of order and life so complex we cannot comprehend it, where our brains are working data on a higher order than super computers, then I would say that I have a good argument for these people being completely nuts, absolutely raving insane.

Thus, when the belief in ID corresponds with our day to day cause and effect, the attack on religious people for believing in God is absolutely unacceptable. You have the right to your beliefs, no matter how insane I think they may be, but let me be accorded the same right vis-a-vis yourself.

This subject is better left in Pandora's box unless it causes all kinds of warning messages on this website. It is a shame that some like to bring this subject up. That there exists mental illness, and a lot of things connected with this is true. But, let's get the ones who are ill treatment, and don't try to put others whose philosophies you don't agree with boxed into this kind of mentality.

Did you see a few days ago, someone had a post where he asked a 'spiritual entity' (Eric was it) to prove himself to the poster. Did you read what he said happened afterwards?

Around min 2 or so, interesting things happen.
Wonder how such things are dismissed by atheists since many of these things are caught on vid security cams:

You have little understanding of the universe and to give bogus a accounts as though you actually know something of the bb is not as good idea.

1 the singularity was not a black hole,
2 it did not explode
3 quantum physics shows that a universe from nothing is feasible [1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing
4 Carlo Rovelli, one of the founders of loop quantum gravity, has proposed that quantum bounce could make back holes eventually explode

So basing a medical assessment of most of the worlds population on ignorance says much about who "completely nuts, absolutely raving insane."

 

[Grandliseur]

You have little understanding of the universe and to give bogus a accounts as though you actually know something of the bb is not as good idea.

1 the singularity was not a black hole,
2 it did not explode
3 quantum physics shows that a universe from nothing is feasible [1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing
4 Carlo Rovelli, one of the founders of loop quantum gravity, has proposed that quantum bounce could make back holes eventually explode

So basing a medical assessment of most of the worlds population on ignorance says much about who "completely nuts, absolutely raving insane."

1. Yet, at the center of every black hole, there is a singularity according to a recent scientific article.
2. the insistence on the word inflation and the attack on the word explosion is a sort of mumbo-jumbo for those who want to sound superior. If you check the dictionary for the word explosion you would find that the inflation that occurred happened at higher speed than an explosion usually is capable of. Why do you think it is called a Big bang?! As what and how is a bang defined as? Kindly use a little common sense. So if in the actual name, an explosion is included, it shouldn't be wrong to use that word - should it now! Rename it, and call it the Big Inflation otherwise.

Not trying to be mean, but is English not your native language?!

So basing a medical assessment of most of the worlds population on ignorance says much about who "completely nuts, absolutely raving insane."

Funny! You think yourselves so superior. It is both sad and hilarious. Once this kind of verbal attack occurs, it is clear your side is incapable of accepting the moniker as applying to yourselves, though you don't mind using it on others. Like small children you stand and call insults out and get mad when it is turned around on yourselves.

 

[siti]

Why do you think it is called a Big bang?!

Actually, it was called the "big bang" by someone who refused to believe it despite the clear evidence - it was a pejorative coined by Fred Hoyle who thought that “the hypothesis that all matter of the universe was created in one big bang at a particular time in the remote past” was "irrational". Most cosmologists who accepted an origin of the universe in finite time - as opposed to the steady state (eternal) universe that Hoyle favoured - disliked the term precisely because it suggested the idea of an 'explosion' which is not what they were suggesting at all. But the phrase stuck and was (although it took a couple of decades) eventually accepted - as an acceptable phrase in the cosmological vocabulary - by cosmologists who now - almost 70 years on - routinely use it to describe the origin of the universe in finite time.

 

[Grandliseur]

Actually, it was called the "big bang" by someone who refused to believe it despite the clear evidence - it was a pejorative coined by Fred Hoyle who thought that “the hypothesis that all matter of the universe was created in one big bang at a particular time in the remote past” was "irrational". Most cosmologists who accepted an origin of the universe in finite time - as opposed to the steady state (eternal) universe that Hoyle favoured - disliked the term precisely because it suggested the idea of an 'explosion' which is not what they were suggesting at all. But the phrase stuck and was (although it took a couple of decades) eventually accepted - as an acceptable phrase in the cosmological vocabulary - by cosmologists who now - almost 70 years on - routinely use it to describe the origin of the universe in finite time.

So, what this shows is that we don't need to be fanatic about common day to day usage. Otherwise, the moniker would not have stuck, scientists would have objected and assigned their own name to it.

 

[siti]

So, what this shows is that we don't need to be fanatic about common day to day usage. Otherwise, the moniker would not have stuck, scientists would have objected and assigned their own name to it.

But it doesn't mean an explosion any more than, for example, the "Wall Street Crash" meant that the street itself had collided violently with some other object. Its a figure of speech, not a scientific description of what happened.

In any case, how do you know that sufficiently massive black holes don't explode every 20 or 30 billion years? Even if that were the case, we would not expect to observe another one in the entire time this universe has been in existence...and even if they happen every ten minutes, the universe might, for all we know, be so vast that the chances of it happening in the part of the universe that is observable to us might be unimaginably small.

The fact is that we don't really know what the "big bang" was or what caused it - all we know is that it happened and that event has left its indelible mark on the cosmos for us to observe. We certainly don't know if it was a one off or a common-place event. We do know that it has resulted in the continuing expansion of the region of space we are able to observe. And that it happened at a finite time in our past.

 

[Grandliseur]

The fact is that we don't really know what the "big bang" was or what caused it

Exactly !

So since nothing is known, why the insistence on it being an inflation for common day expressions when what it resembles is indeed an explosion. None even know if it was an explosion that set the whole thing off, etc.

 

[siti]

Exactly !

So since nothing is known, why the insistence on it being an inflation for common day expressions when what it resembles is indeed an explosion. None even know if it was an explosion that set the whole thing off, etc.

OK - go with explosion if it makes you feel better...can we get back on topic now?

 

[Grandliseur]

OK - go with explosion if it makes you feel better...can we get back on topic now?

I am finished with that thread. I like this topic better.

 

[siti]

I am finished with that thread. I like this topic better.

Well I hope you're satisfied with yourself - you have turned a serious discussion topic into a joke thread for the scientifically illiterate - I feared we might not be mature enough to handle the topic, but I never imagined an outcome quite as puerile as this - I'm sure your God is mighty proud of your child-like faith though!

 

[Grandliseur]

If you looked at the volume of posts, of exchanges, I have had with others on this thread, you would see that it has become quite threadbare. Some interesting exchanges were accomplished on the topic.

Nonetheless, it is a shame that many atheists cannot avoid stooping to insults to elevate themselves in their own minds and avoiding getting into the gutter. Frankly, this approach is fairly reminiscent of a kind of insanity, of the mentally ill, this post is talking about. Too bad it infects so many. It is one reason why debates between the two groups is less than desirable.

 

[ChristineM]

1. Yet, at the center of every black hole, there is a singularity according to a recent scientific article.
2. the insistence on the word inflation and the attack on the word explosion is a sort of mumbo-jumbo for those who want to sound superior. If you check the dictionary for the word explosion you would find that the inflation that occurred happened at higher speed than an explosion usually is capable of. Why do you think it is called a Big bang?! As what and how is a bang defined as? Kindly use a little common sense. So if in the actual name, an explosion is included, it shouldn't be wrong to use that word - should it now! Rename it, and call it the Big Inflation otherwise.

Not trying to be mean, but is English not your native language?!

Funny! You think yourselves so superior. It is both sad and hilarious. Once this kind of verbal attack occurs, it is clear your side is incapable of accepting the moniker as applying to yourselves, though you don't mind using it on others. Like small children you stand and call insults out and get mad when it is turned around on yourselves.

Yes, and what? A black hole centre is a singularity, how does this relate to assumptions regarding the beginning of the universe? Conditions are unknown prior to 10e-43 of a second after the event. Inflation theory is based on known conditions after that time and extrapolation.

You need to learn the definition of words before you confuse them.
The inflation occured faster than the speed of light, that still does not make it an explosion. The universe is still inflating faster than later light and it is still inflating.

A bang is a sudden, sharp, loud noise. The static you hear on your am tv or radio when tuned between channels is partly the echo of that bang.

Common sense of a bb denier, no thanks, I'd prefer evidence based fact over bronze age mumbo jumbo.

Yes you at trying to be mean as many christians are. The reason i left the church in the first place is because of mean individuals like you who mocked disability in the hope of gaining extra god points. Please note, real english is my native language as opposed to the mish mash american english.

Ahh right, ad hominem immediately following a personal attack, how pathetic that facts make you run for such sickening tactics in a failed attempt to justify bronze age mythology.

 

[ChristineM]

If you looked at the volume of posts, of exchanges, I have had with others on this thread, you would see that it has become quite threadbare. Some interesting exchanges were accomplished on the topic.

Nonetheless, it is a shame that many atheists cannot avoid stooping to insults to elevate themselves in their own minds and avoiding getting into the gutter. Frankly, this approach is fairly reminiscent of a kind of insanity, of the mentally ill, this post is talking about. Too bad it infects so many. It is one reason why debates between the two groups is less than desirable.

So after insulting me you try to flip it round? Note, the posts on this thread are evidence.

 

[Grandliseur]

So after insulting me you try to flip it round? Note, the posts on this thread are evidence.

And, how did I begin insulting you? You came at me first if memory serves.

#190 & 191 seemed to finish pleasantly, and from then it went to hell in 192, your post.

 

[ChristineM]

And, how did I begin insulting you? You came at me first if memory serves.

#190 & 191 seemed to finish pleasantly, and from then it went to hell in 192, your post.

Your post #185 to me that insulted my language skills mocking my disability (dyslexia) then the last paragraph went into a personal attack is the post i answered and the one i am referring to. Before that the posts were pleasant

 

[Grandliseur]

Your post #185 to me that insulted my language skills mocking my disability (

I believe I asked an honest question, even saying that I didn't mean any disrespect, but wondering if you might be from some other country. What is wrong with that? If you took offense, I am sorry, it was not meant as an insult at all.

Not trying to be mean, but is English not your native language?!

Is what I said. How is that insulting? I apologize if you understood it wrongly. I am used to so many languages, I speak several but have obvious defects in other languages that native speakers would pick up quickly.

No insult intended. I did not intend to hurt your feelings. Sorry.
https://www.religiousforums.com/goto/post?id=5504084#post-5504084

From post #185:
You: So basing a medical assessment of most of the worlds population on ignorance says much about who "completely nuts, absolutely raving insane."
Me: Funny! You think yourselves so superior. It is both sad and hilarious. Once this kind of verbal attack occurs, it is clear your side is incapable of accepting the moniker as applying to yourselves, though you don't mind using it on others. Like small children you stand and call insults out and get mad when it is turned around on yourselves.

It seems even there I was simply responding to your 'who is completely nuts...Even here it was your implication as to who is 'raving nuts.'

I do not respond peacefully when being attacked, as this first post seemed to imply, which then later were seen to have valid terms that could be discussed. That you pick up the thread of this, and respond adversely to this is neither here nor there. Until this discussion between you and me descended into hell, I used polite language to you.

Again, if my asking about you being a native speaker was taken as an insult, I apologize. That was never my intent. Just curious since so many nationalities come to these boards from various countries.

However, I have had quite enough of this exchange. So, this is my final exchange with you.

 

[ChristineM]

I believe I asked an honest question, even saying that I didn't mean any disrespect, but wondering if you might be from some other country. What is wrong with that? If you took offense, I am sorry, it was not meant as an insult at all.

Is what I said. How is that insulting? I apologize if you understood it wrongly. I am used to so many languages, I speak several but have obvious defects in other languages that native speakers would pick up quickly.

No insult intended. I did not intend to hurt your feelings. Sorry.
It seems even there I was simply responding to your 'who is completely nuts...Even here it was your implication as to who is 'raving nuts.'

I do not respond peacefully when being attacked, as this first post seemed to imply, which then later were seen to have valid terms that could be discussed. That you pick up the thread of this, and respond adversely to this is neither here nor there. Until this discussion between you and me descended into hell, I used polite language to you.

Again, if my asking about you being a native speaker was taken as an insult, I apologize. That was never my intent. Just curious since so many nationalities come to these boards from various countries.

However, I have had quite enough of this exchange. So, this is my final exchange with you.

You didn't hurt anything, it is expected from certain quarters.


The 'who is completely nuts.' And 'raving nuts' were in quotes because it was copied and pasted directly from the post of yours #2. You need to remember what you wrote before loosing it when someone quotes you. You attack others, even in general terms, they will respond in kind.

 

[Grandliseur]

dyslexia

One final note about dyslexia. I am sure I suffer from this too. As you fight the problem, you will find that you start knowing what to watch out for. I have come to know where my problems lie, and to use the spellchecker. I know what I am, what my problems are - and don't mind it.

Only said to be supportive. So, end of this for me.