Skip to main content

View Diary: TX: Liberal athiest fired for being liberal, athiest [call to arms] (45 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't think so. (0+ / 0-)

    There is evidence out there that billions don't want to be blue monkeys.

    I'm not so much thinking of the undereducated worlds but more modern countries.  I mean you can be an Anglican bishop and an atheist nowadays - no problemo.

    Insanity;

    1. The state of being insane; unsoundness or derangement of mind; madness; lunacy. "All power of fancy over reason is a degree of insanity." (Johnson) "Without grace The heart's insanity admits no cure." (Cowper)
    1. Such a mental condition, as, either from the existence of delusions, or from incapacity to distinguish between right and wrong, with regard to any matter under action, does away with individual responsibility.

    Believing someone died on a cross to save all mankind from its sins has got to fit into that definition.

    To my mind any one espousing a belief in an irrational god should not have the legal right to vote any more than any other insane person does.

    There are a number of sane theists but they are very few.

    It gets really quite interesting when you stand there and actually demand to know what a theist will assert as true.  Then you find out just how few are sane.

    Best Wishes, Demena Economic Left/Right: -8.38
 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36

    by Demena on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:06:07 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

      There is evidence out there that billions don't want to be blue monkeys.

      Okay; let's see it.


      I'm not so much thinking of the undereducated worlds but more modern countries.  I mean you can be an Anglican bishop and an atheist nowadays - no problemo.

      I suppose it depends upon where you draw the line (is, say, Brazil part of the "undereducated world" or is it a "more modern countr[y]"? Or some of each?), but as far as I can tell the "undereducated world" represents a gigantic number of people. By contrast, I hope you'll concede that a very small proportion of the human population of the planet are Anglican bishops.


      Believing someone died on a cross to save all mankind from its sins has got to fit into that definition [of insanity].

      I disagree. Accepting a proposition like Jesus' resurrection when you have been indoctrinated with it beginning extremely early in life--which is the case, regarding that particular proposition, for well over a billion people--is not insane. It's irrational, but I hope we all recognize that reason is a very exacting standard.

      I have to dissent from the notion that religious belief, simply because it's (1) irrational and (2) absurd to people standing outside of it, constitutes a mental illness or defect.


      To my mind any one espousing a belief in an irrational god should not have the legal right to vote any more than any other insane person does.

      Whoa--that falls very clearly afoul of the First Amendment, not to mention the basic human freedom of conscience. Again, I have to dissent.

      •  Wrong in so many ways. (0+ / 0-)

        I disagree. Accepting a proposition like Jesus' resurrection when you have been indoctrinated with it beginning extremely early in life--which is the case, regarding that particular proposition, for well over a billion people--is not insane. It's irrational, but I hope we all recognize that reason is a very exacting standard.

        I don't see a difference between persistent irrationality and insanity.  [Insanity can be defined as constantly repeating the same actions expecting a different result].

        I have to dissent from the notion that religious belief, simply because it's (1) irrational and (2) absurd to people standing outside of it, constitutes a mental illness or defect.

        When my computer keeps giving me a demonstrably wrong answer  I consider it defective.  When my mind does the same then it isn't working right either.

        Whoa--that falls very clearly afoul of the First Amendment, not to mention the basic human freedom of conscience. Again, I have to dissent.

        Utter self serving nonsense.  Mental competency is required (or should be) to vote.  People who have been committed don't get to vote for good reason.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with the First Amendment.

        Yes you dissent.  But can you rationally dissent?  Not so far.....

        Best Wishes, Demena Economic Left/Right: -8.38
 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36

        by Demena on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:04:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

          Utter self serving nonsense.

          What do you mean, "self serving"? I'm an atheist, friend.

          There are good reasons why religious beliefs aren't included in the DSM. Mental health professionals uniformly recognize that belief in God does not make one mentally ill. If that's not "rational dissent" from your armchair philosophizing, I'm not sure what could be.

          When my mind does the same then it isn't working right either.

          That's not what insanity is. Human beings consistently give "a demonstrably wrong answer" to the Monty Hall Problem--and yet that does not make them insane.

          Finally, no jurisdiction in the country denies voting rights to anyone just on the basis of something (s)he believes. (Even if it's Xenu, or the Raelians, or the notion that (s)he is Napoleon or Jesus.) And that's a good thing; as despised minorities, it would be vastly dangerous to us to grant the government to decide which beliefs disqualify people from voting. If that were possible, you and I would obviously be the first ones turned away. And then, entirely possibly, locked up.

          The road you're headed down would only lead to the two of us being declared insane for failing to recognize the "overwhelming evidence" that God exists. C'mon--don't give the theocrats the tools to lock us up.

          •  Atheist? Strange views then. (0+ / 0-)

            That's not what insanity is. Human beings consistently give "a demonstrably wrong answer" to the Monty Hall Problem--and yet that does not make them insane.

            I have never yet failed to explain the solution successfully to anyone.  The analogy fails.

            And that's a good thing; as despised minorities, it would be vastly dangerous to us to grant the government to decide which beliefs disqualify people from voting. If that were possible, you and I would obviously be the first ones turned away. And then, entirely possibly, locked up.

            As distinct form suffering loss of jobs and advancement?  As distinct from being regarded as unimportant, second class citizens, not to be taken seriously?

            You make my point.

            Best Wishes, Demena Economic Left/Right: -8.38
 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36

            by Demena on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 02:37:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'M "strange"? (0+ / 0-)

              Find me a single prominent atheist who would agree with you that theism is (1) conclusive evidence of insanity that (2) justifies denying the vote to a believer. Actually, I'd be interested (though potentially unimpressed, depending on the person) if you could find a single other atheist on this blog who agrees with you on both points.

              Richard Dawkins has been incessantly roasted for titling his book The God Delusion because, to many people, that implies that theists are mentally ill. If he agreed with you, that allegation would be no problem--but Dawkins has taken pains to deny it:

              The word 'delusion' in my title has disquieted some psychiatrists who regard it as a technical term, not to be bandied about. Three of them wrote to me to propose a special technical term for religious delusion: 'relusion'. Maybe it'll catch on. But for now I am going to stick with 'delusion', and I need to justify my use of it. The Penguin English Dictionary defines a delusion as 'a false belief or impression'. [....] The dictionary supplied with Microsoft Word defines a delusion as 'a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of psychiatric disorder'. The first part captures religious faith perfectly.

              - The God Delusion (2006), p. 5, emphasis added.

              Dawkins thus makes it clear that he is not asserting that theism is a "psychiatric disorder."

              Again, I challenge you to find a prominent atheist who declares theism per se as a form of insanity that justifies depriving someone of the vote. The reality is that your "views" are demographically "strange"--obviously among the broder population, but also among open atheists.


              I have never yet failed to explain the solution successfully to anyone.

              That's an utterly irrelevant red herring. You defined the continual returning of "a demonstrably wrong answer" to be conclusive evidence of insanity. The Monty Hall Problem, and human beings' continually wrong answer to it, constitute a phenomenon that qualifies as insanity under your definition but does not justify legal sanction. It is irrelevant how many people you'd like to claim you've "deconverted" from MHP error. The reality contrasts starkly with your (ahem) self-serving boasts:

              In her book The Power of Logical Thinking, [Marilyn] vos Savant (1996:15) quotes cognitive psychologist Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini as saying "... no other statistical puzzle comes so close to fooling all the people all the time" and "that even Nobel physicists systematically give the wrong answer, and that they insist on it, and they are ready to berate in print those who propose the right answer."

              (Boldface added.)

              Should those physicists be denied the right to vote?


              As distinct form suffering loss of jobs and advancement?  As distinct from being regarded as unimportant, second class citizens, not to be taken seriously?

              Yes. None of those statuses bars us from voting, which was the matter under discussion. You are once again flogging a red herring.

              You haven't actually rebutted anything I've written. You've entirely ignored the DSM point and the fact that no jurisdiction denies the vote merely on the basis of beliefs, even bizarre ones. The authorities, in both psychiatry and law, conclusively disagree with you. That is relevant.

              •  Cobblers. (0+ / 0-)

                Find me a single prominent atheist who would agree with you that theism is (1) conclusive evidence of insanity that (2) justifies denying the vote to a believer.

                Find where I claim that and then read it again.  There is a difference between 'casting doubt' and making a claim.

                Dawkins thus makes it clear that he is not asserting that theism is a "psychiatric disorder."

                Again, I challenge you to find a prominent atheist who declares theism per se as a form of insanity that justifies depriving someone of the vote. The reality is that your "views" are demographically "strange"--obviously among the broder population, but also among open atheists.

                So, I am not going to bow down to Dawkins any more that I would bow to a priest.

                You are being very simplistic.  Someone might have a delusion in the Dawkins sense due to ignorance and bad teaching but when those are remedied and the delusion still persists then it becomes delusional in the psychiatric sense.

                Anyone coming here has likely been exposed to enough education, to enough information that they can hardly claim ignorance for their delusion.  As such the only fall back is the psychiatric one.

                That's an utterly irrelevant red herring. You defined the continual returning of "a demonstrably wrong answer" to be conclusive evidence of insanity. The Monty Hall Problem, and human beings' continually wrong answer to it, constitute a phenomenon that qualifies as insanity under your definition but does not justify legal sanction. It is irrelevant how many people you'd like to claim you've "deconverted" from MHP error. The reality contrasts starkly with your (ahem) self-serving boasts:

                No it isn't a red herring and it is one you bought up.  Now you try and twist it to your support.  Geeze you are stretching.

                The Monte Hall problem can be explained fairly simply.  Once have been explained, demonstrated and understood, if a person still maintains the opposite case then their sanity is in doubt.  If for some reason they cannot comprehend a good and full explanation then their competance is in doubt.

                Yes. None of those statuses bars us from voting, which was the matter under discussion. You are once again flogging a red herring.

                Not a red herring either.  But you do manage to tell an untruth.  The matter under discussion was not being barred from voting.  And if you think that unequal status is a red herring I suggest you talk to some people of other races or gender.

                You haven't actually rebutted anything I've written. You've entirely ignored the DSM point and the fact that no jurisdiction denies the vote merely on the basis of beliefs, even bizarre ones. The authorities, in both psychiatry and law, conclusively disagree with you. That is relevant.

                You haven't said anything worthy of a rebuttal.  Look at your arguments, they come down to the fact that "everyone disagrees with you so you are wrong".  Tell that to Galileo Galilei.

                Best Wishes, Demena Economic Left/Right: -8.38
 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36

                by Demena on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 04:04:56 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site