Salixes

Christ "allegedly" stated such.

You have no proof that Christ uttered those words nor, existed for that matter.

Jim Jones said: "If we can't live in peace, then let's die in peace."

In each case, the words were uttered by a charismatic, manipulative cult leader.

And in each case, the words are some of the most gut-wrenching, morbid disturbing nonsense ever to have been uttered.

Except that in Jones's case, the words were no more than woeful speculation.

The words from Christ were no less than morbid, fear-mongering lies.

Arguably, three of the most notorious charlatans of all time were Jim Jones, Adolf Hitler and (the alleged) Jesus Christ.

Although Hitler did not lead a religious cult he was known to be devoutly Catholic and clearly let it be known that he had a mandate from God to carry out the elimination of Jews. He was also fully backed and financed by the Catholic Church.

But let's take a look at the facts:

Adolf Hitler was a distinguished soldier, fine dresser, a vegetarian a non smoker and drank very little. He was known to have been responsible for the killing of 6 million Jews during the holocaust.

Jim Jones was a charismatic, rapist who was responsible for the murder of over 900 of his followers.

(the alleged, by some) Jesus Christ was a low-paid hippie-like carpenter's laborer who, like Jones conned his followers into believing that he was the son of God. He was responsible for the persecution and murder of more than over 8 million of his deluded followers.

You be the judge. Who was the worst of the worst?

What evidence is there for the supernatural then?

You may very well say atheists are delusional, or stupid or ignorant however you have absolutely no grounds, justification or evidence to back up your erroneous claim.

Fact: Those who believe in God are delusional, stupid and arrogant.

I have already fully backed up the fact which has not been successfully refuted.

I think you will find that the so-called "standards" are in place in most states and societies.

There are laws that cover vilifying minority groups such as homosexuals.

For example: the well documented case of Kimberley Davis who refused to issue marriage licences to gays "under God's authority"; She was ultimately jailed for contempt of court. 

There are many other cases of Christians vilifying minority groups in the name of God.

Christian Churches openly document their vilification of homosexuals and their so-called "standards" are at complete odds with those of decent, law-abiding societies

Fact; Christian Churches incite hatred towards homosexuals.

Fact: Christians habitually display hatred against homosexuals.

I have often heard the excuse from Christians "But I don't follow those rules, it's my Church, not me".

Surely, if one subscribes to an organisation that openly preaches hatred towards others, one is just as guilty through association.

My "interpretation or feelings" regarding the Bible being full of fable or myth is pure fact.

For example, there is not one piece of evidence that verifies the myth of Noah and the Ark.

I was not talking generically about how the Bible is interpreted.

Let me be quite specific.

Christian Churches have openly laid down rules to its followers that homosexuality is not acceptable to the extent of prohibiting marriage between homosexuals, refusing baptism to homosexuals or even allowing homosexuals to be Church members.

It is Churches, not particular Christians who use written verse for their own ends to actively incite hatred towards minority groups including those of other faiths and homosexuals.

Apparently so.

Numerous, authoritative studies have revealed that those who are religious followers have lower IQs than atheists.

“It is well established that religiosity correlates inversely with intelligence,” (Richard Daws and Adam Hampshire, Imperial College London)

Some findings indicate that, on an international level, countries with more intelligent people tend to have more atheists.

Other reports suggest that religion is an instinct and people who can rise above instincts are more intelligent than those who rely on them.

Yet more telling studies have shown that because religious institutions shun followers from acquiring knowledge that may contradict their belief (for example, scientific studies), the chances of religious followers gaining a balanced knowledge base are stifled, therefore producing lower IQs.  

I have never seen anything authoritative defining God as the uncreated creator.

Nor have I seen any of the evidence proving evolution been successfully overturned.

Can you give any sources of such bold statements?

I suspect not.

I have heard this "ultimate reality" argument before and Mopac is steadfast for a reason. He has absolutely no reason or argument in defence of his idiosyncratic belief.

I say this because I have seen this pattern quite a number of times. In each case the answer is the same and on each occasion, when answering a challenge, the answer is identical.

It (stating the ultimate reality) is no more than a smokescreen to hide a weak constitution.

Thanks for your elaboration of my point.

In some ways, homosexuals have a lot to offer society because of their distinct nuances.

I think it a shame that there is still much hatred (dissent, opposition, by any other euphemism) coming from Christian Churches which continue to vilify homosexuals to the extent of denying the same status of anybody else. The Bible is full of condemnation of homosexuals and (many) Churches still follow such dictates. In general, Churches are way behind the times in terms of moral values and accepted social norms.

Perhaps when Churches can make a quantum leap and follow the rest of society they will be better off for not harboring those individuals who are truly hateful, bigotted and give Christianity a bad name.

You made a statement but have not backed it up with any reasoning, nor evidence.

In fact, your statement contradicts the views of the laws and morals of most states and countries around the world.

Do you think that it is fair to make statements (and you have made three so far) without any qualification or justification and contradict facts and reason?

We are talking here about homosexuality.

You have changed the subject completely and are talking about sexual immorality.

Are you going to correctly address the question?

Good question there and in fact, there is a very well known test that psychologists (and employers) use to determine whether or not people accept things at face value. In nearly all cases respondents believing supernatural phenomena were identified. it's a very simple math problem and it is not a matter of the answer being right or wrong but what it indicates.

I purchase a bat and ball for $110.00.

If the bat costs $100.00 more than the ball, how much does the ball cost?

I have proven and given sound evidence that those who believe in God are deluded.

You have not successfully refuted nor challenged the evidence and simply calling my argument illogical is not only bad judgment but wrong.

Furthermore, you have completely failed to even attempt to address the subject questions.

The irrefutable evidence that overwhelmingly supports the fact that life is a result of evolution by natural selection very much puts the kibosh on any notion that life was in any way created.

However, there are some unanswered questions as to how matter or energy came to be.

If we were to assume that there is a God responsible for at least being the prime mover of existence it is not just good enough to say "God has always been there and that's that"

If one were to believe there is a God so complex as to be responsible for creating such a massive universe (or life for that matter) without "just happening" then one would have to accept that there would be an even greater entity (or God) to have created that God.

And so the conundrum continues ad finitum.

We now accept life is due to evolution through natural selection so, could it be that if a God exists, such an entity was itself a result of the same process?

You would very well know that of course, it is impossible, nonsensical and absurd to prove the absence of something.

You could reasonably assert that there is no such thing as pink elephants with wings.

And you would think it impossible, nonsensical and absurd (as well as pointless) if I were to ask you to disprove the existence of pink elephants with wings.

Are you in any way trying to infer that the absence of proof for disproving something in any way validates the existence of it?

In other words, what would your point be if there is no evidence to disprove something?

If one were to state the existence of something then it would be possible to prove such an existence.

You believe that there are 10,000 Gods in existence.

What is your proof?

It may be what "we" have understood for thousands of years but it is still meaningless, unqualified and nonsensical rhetoric.

You have not specified what the "one true God is" as distinct from 9,999 other Gods.

Nor have you explained why being nihilistic is self-defeating. 

I say this because, on face value, what you said is no more than confused, meaningless nonsense.

I also picked up another mistake you made.

Do you think that homosexuals do anything different from heterosexuals?

And if so, what is it?

And what is it that makes Christians hate homosexuals?

I have clearly established that there is distinct hatred from Christians, I think perhaps you should re-read my opening and subsequent posts to refresh your memory.

Also, Christians forbid marriage between homosexuals and forbid membership of homosexuals. They also shun association by their followers with homosexuals.

If that doesn't constitute more than a modicum of hatred then perhaps you could explain what does.

What is it about homosexuality that classifies it "along with all forms of sexual immorality".

Are you inferring somehow that homosexuality is immoral?

And, if so, apart from out of sheer ignorance, what reason do you have for making such an erroneous judgment? 

Whether or not Christians defend passages from the Bible is beside the point.

The point being is that Christians use passages from the Bible to justify their hatreds due to ignorance.

It is just not good enough to state that "the Bible says so" to one situation yet ignore what the Bible says about another situation.

Do you think it appropriate to defend the act of severing a woman's hand if she intervened in a fight between two men?

I think that maybe you have a propensity for hating homosexuals for no valid reason.

Can you explain what it is that homosexuals should be excused from?

Your arrogance (and I'm not knocking it, it can be a quality)is pertinent to the fact that your not being an atheist refuted my claim.

In any case, I am presenting an intellectual scenario here in that for you to believe in one God makes you a 99.99% atheist since you disbelieve so many Gods. Regardless of tautology or semantics, how do you consider your God to be the right or correct one when there are 9,999 other religions whose followers say exactly the same thing? And each without any authentication or proof of their respective Gods.

I will gladly substantiate that there's not an ounce of proof for any god's existence if you could let me know what you require to substantiate such.

Have you made an in-depth study that concludes why infertile heterosexual couples are infertile?

Have you considered that many could be due to frigidity, in which case it is their fault?

Have you considered also that probably most gays are so, not by choice but because they were born that way?

Yes, you are right. Homosexuals are responsible for their own homosexual activity.

And heterosexuals are responsible for their own heterosexual activity.

I am asking, "so what"?

Especially given that there is no difference between what homosexuals heterosexuals do.

This brings me to the illustration that I made; Christians are known to claim "we don't hate what they are, we hate what they do".

 Christians vehemently hate homosexuals for no other valid reason other than ignorance.

Whether or not a homosexual is so by choice or through genes or social conditions, Christians call homosexuality a sin and a perversion. Call it by any classification, gay, lesbian, transexual, Christians hate gays and your reasoning falls way short of explaining otherwise.

And (supposedly) condemned by God for no reason than God says so which is reason enough for Christians.

Yet do we see the same people wearing clothes of one fabric or not cutting their hair (as God has condemned)?

No, we don't, with few exceptions that is.

This leads one to conclude that Christians will only select the dos and don'ts from the Bible that fit in with their preconceptions.

Homophobia is one of them.

I agree that there would be some Christians who hate homosexuality because of the inability to reproduce.

But if you ask the same Christians whether they hate an infertile heterosexual couple, you would get a different answer.

I suspect that the excuse of inability to reproduce is just a front to hiding their true reason; ignorance.

Good one there.

The point I'm making is that Christians have a habit of cherry-picking rules from the Bible (even the NT) to suit their own preconceptions or phobias.

For example, you will find references to "going after strange flesh" and Jesus preaching marriage only between opposites sexes in the New Testament. Christians latch onto that one and suck it for all its worth but when it comes to:

Gouge out your eyeball:  (Matthew 5:29)

I don't think you will find many homophobes who have ripped out an eye for looking at a woman.

I think perhaps you missed the qualification and reasoning I gave to the subject.

Making a statement about oneself to refute a validly constructed claim is displaying both ignorance and arrogance.

it is also arrogant (if not, totally absurd) to tell somebody to disprove something that is not even proven in the first place.

Christians have often uttered the adage, "We don't hate homosexuals. We just hate what they do".

Such a dictum has no weight to it since homosexuals are no different from heterosexuals in what they do. In any case, isn't "we just hate what they do" no more than a euphemism for saying "we hate them"?

If we take a look at the Bible we can see where Christians get their mandate to hate homosexuals. The book of Leviticus states that "it is an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman."

But then, the same chapter tells Christians (men) not to cut their hair.

Do we see many Christian homophobes wearing long hair as well? 

Which brings us to the word "homophobic".

Here we can get a good insight as to why Christians are so hateful.

As with any phobia, homophobia is a fear of homosexuals.

Experts will tell us that the key cause of fear is ignorance or lack of knowledge (of what is feared). This is born out by the saying that the greatest fear is the fear of fear itself.

All Christian institutions urge their followers to shun any information (for example, scientific publications) that contradicts their beliefs and even promote the idea that followers should not associate or do business with others outside their circle.

Is it not fair to say then that Christians hate gays for no other reason than ignorance?

That's a fine bit rhetoric however someone who believes in a different God will call you an atheist.

And let's be a little bit realistic here shall we?

Surely you are making a futile attempt at the "anything goes" mentality by trying to introduce God as "anything I want to make it out to be".

Come on. Let's stick to the accepted meaning of God without making pathetic inferences that somehow God is somebody's motivation.

Muslims also have Jannah, Judaists have Shamayim, Buddhists have at least six heavens, call it by any other name but, in general, every religion has its own loyalty rewards and "going to heaven" is the most universal enticement.

I have witnessed the effects that Christianity has on old people who are very near the end of their lives. Many of them are totally mortified and worried sleepless over whether or not they will make the grade.

True, anyone can be delusional and it would be fair to say that everyone has suffered from delusion to some degree at times.

However, what I am talking about here is people who are deluded a good deal of the time.

Anyone who believes in God is deluded, a fact that I have clearly qualified in post #10.

My concern is that perhaps religion exacerbates the degree of delusion in its followers.

For example, Christian Churches not only constantly confirm the presence of an imaginary friend but also promote other idiosyncratic beliefs such as possessing a soul and earning an afterlife for being loyal.

The "God gene" hypothesis is but one of many research studies that indicate that some people have an inbuilt disposition to accept supernatural phenomena and accept things at face value.

I understand exactly what you are saying.

I do not deny that "ultimate reality" is God.

However the term "ultimate reality" is a metaphorical concept and has no substantial meaning to it whatsoever.

You made a bold assertion,... "Truthfully, those who believe there is no Ultimate Reality are deluded. Truly those who believe they practice no religion are deluded." without qualifying it with evidence or reason.

Indeed, such a statement is wrong and contradicts the fact that anyone who believes in God is deluded.

I have already established such a fact in post #10 and your contradiction is totally invalid. The words "truthfully" and "truly" do not constitute validity to your statement in any way.

I did ask if you have any discussion or argument about the subject.

Are you going to stop trying to divert the subject and actually make an attempt at properly addressing it?

I'm sure you would agree that it is absurd to demand someone to disprove something that is not even proven in the first place.

If you look at the top of the page you will see that the subject is:

"Does religion cause delusion, or are religious people deluded to start with"

So far you have offered not one discussion or argument to the subject one way or the other.

I made no such conclusion at all and you have also failed to quote where and/or how I (allegedly) made such a conclusion.

Nevertheless, you are not really making an effort to address the topic.

Contrary to your assertion (so you not really asking a question) I did pose questions.

Do you mind not trying to sidetrack the discussion and address those questions?

"followers are required to believe in an entity that is invisible, silent and completely unproven." is not a conclusion. It is an established fact that is a condition of my argument and not a conclusion of the subject.

You claimed incorrectly that I made false assumptions, failed to cite any false assumptions nor indeed explained why such "assumptions" are false.

You have also not addressed the subject at all.

I'm sure you would agree that arguing about semantics and introducing sidesteps is hardly conducive to decent, fair commentary.

Would you kindly stick to the subject?

At last count, there are about 10,000 different Gods known to be worshipped around the world and each religious cult claims its God as being the only true God in existence.

Therefore, a religious follower would reject 9,999 Gods, which isn't that much different from a full-blown atheist who rejects just one more God.

Which begs the question (given that each religion claims their respective God is the only pathway to an afterlife and indeed do different sects within a religion claim the same thing about how they worship the same God):

Given that not one God has a single ounce of proof of its existence, (and assuming that there is a God), how do religious followers feel about the fact that they have less than 1 in 10,000 chances of (going to heaven)?

 I made no conclusion whatsoever to the subject questions.

You made no comment whatsoever regarding the issue since it had nothing to do with whether or not I am deluded.

Perhaps you could now offer a valid comment or argument relating to the topic if indeed you do have anything to offer.

You have made a series of errors in your post.

For example confusticating "proof" of God with "accepting" God then making an unconnected, meaningless conclusion.

And: "If the soul doesn't exist, then psychology and psychiatry have no scientific basis, because these areas of study have everything to do with the soul." is an incorrect statement since both psychology and psychiatry are sciences regardless of having anything to do with the soul.

delusion | di'ˈlu:ːz(e)n noun: an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

The belief of God is idiosyncratic and there is nothing in reality that supports the notion nor is there any rational argument (for the existence of God)

The fact is that those who believe there is a God are deluded.

You have also failed to address the three questions of the subject, being, does religion cause delusion or are religious followers deluded to start with, or are both factors at play?

Do you have a valid argument to the subject at all?

If so, what is it? 

The issue is whether religious followers are deluded inherently or by becoming religious.

Do you have any comment to offer on the issue?

I wasn't aware of reaching a conclusion.

What sort of conclusion do you think I supposedly reached?

Or are religious people deluded to start with?

If we look at the first question, we would need to consider the effect religion has on followers.

For example, followers are required to believe in an entity that is invisible, silent and completely unproven.

Also, the fundamental principals of religions state that humans have a "soul". Again there is not one piece of evidence to support such a concept and the word soul is normally used as a metaphor.

To this extent, could we say that religion influences or even, forces followers to become deluded.

It could be that religious followers are deluded regardless of religion and find themselves attracted to the abstract, nature of believing in an unknown, contrived entity. For example, comprehensive research and authoritative studies have concluded:

Could the delusion in some religious followers be due to both factors, i.e., hereditary and conditional? In which case would some religious followers be more deluded than others