Whose Pathology?

[Heteroclite]

larkin31:

…many atheists see faith in a god as a neurotic, fear-based response toward the threat of death and the unknown. Many atheists consider this a cowardly, unintelligent, irresponsible reaction.

Timothy17:

I could describe atheism as neurotic, anti-social behaviour (96% of humans believe in the supernatural), arising from a response of fear towards God and what is known about Him.

Over at another thread, these 2 comments caught my attention. Considering that “neurotic” is relative to one’s ultimate frame of reference (even in a court of law, the psychiatrist for the prosecution might declare the defendent neurotic, while the psychiatrist for the defense might deny it), my questions are:

1. who is qualified to determine what’s truly neurotic (bear in mind that in the S.U. and Cuba, it was/is common practice to incarcerate in psych wards/mental institutions those who believe in God)?
2. By what criteria?
3. Wouldn’t this determination force the State (i.e. the court) to make a religious judgement, thereby infringing on Separation of Church & State?

 

[AntiTheist]

It’s irrelevant. The motivation behind a person holding a belief (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to the question of whether the belief is true or not.

 

[HumbleDeist]

Hey, good point there. Both sides seem to think that the other side is either ridiculous or insane. The atheists tend to think that because they feel that Christianity is ridiculous that it should be ridiculed. Christians generally tend to think that Atheists are misguided and need to be brought back to Christ.

Both sides have valid points in their arguments, but the reality is that there is no need to fight about it. As long as they don’t try to push their beliefs on each other than there will be no harm.

Although I must say that not all people that believe in a god choose to believe in that god or gods because they are scared of death. I am a Deist and I’m not really sure if there is an afterlife, but I do believe in a god. So that atheist argument isn’t really valid.

 

[larkin31]

It’s irrelevant. The motivation behind a person holding a belief (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to the question of whether the belief is true or not.

Indeed

And I don’t even feel like defending my claim. To me, it is virtually self-evident from the writings of several Judeo-Christian texts. But neuroses comes in many forms, so I don’t really care all that much except for when it causes violence against others.

 

[Heteroclite]

I don’t even feel like defending my claim. To me, it is virtually self-evident from the writings of several Judeo-Christian texts. But neuroses comes in many forms, so I don’t really care all that much except for when it causes violence against others.

“When it causes violence against others.” But that’s exactly the problem, Larkin: under a Marxist system (and we are getting more Marxist every day—if you disagree, please start a new thread), if you’re a non-closet believer in God, VIOLENCE is committed against you; have you read up at all on the Hitleresque atrocities committed against believers under Communism (Cuba, China, S.U.)?

I didn’t ask you to defend your claim: I asked questions that your and Tim17’s claims were merely a spring board for. I’d be eager to hear your views on those questions.

 

[AntiTheist]

we are getting more Marxist every day

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Sure thing, buddy.

Ok, for the fun of it, let’s humor your questions:

who is qualified to determine what’s truly neurotic (bear in mind that in the S.U. and Cuba, it was/is common practice to incarcerate in psych wards/mental institutions those who believe in God)?

No one. No one is ever going to “determine what’s truly neurotic” because larkin wasn’t proposing a diagnosis of something out of the ordinary.

You do know that Freud said that all people are neurotic, right? Having a neurotic fear of death – or various other neuroses – is not at all uncommon or something that a person would be locked up for.

By what criteria?

See above.

Wouldn’t this determination force the State (i.e. the court) to make a religious judgement, thereby infringing on Separation of Church & State?

Yes. I fully agree that the Marxist dystopia that exists in your fevered imagination would violate the separation of church and state that is so vital to America. This is yet another good reason for having a separation of church and state.

 

[larkin31]

“When it causes violence against others.” But that’s exactly the problem, Larkin: under a Marxist system (and we are getting more Marxist every day—if you disagree, please start a new thread), if you’re a non-closet believer in God, VIOLENCE is committed against you; have you read up at all on the Hitleresque atrocities committed against believers under Communism (Cuba, China, S.U.)?

I didn’t ask you to defend your claim: I asked questions that your and Tim17’s claims were merely a spring board for. I’d be eager to hear your views on those questions.

There is no Hitler-esque assault on your religious liberties in this country. I thought that the moderators here were presently discouraging this kind of political/fascist remark.

I will have no other reply to this idea.

 

[HumbleDeist]

Ahh, Heteroclite, you Godwin’d us on the 5th thread!
knowyourmeme.com/memes/godwins-law