Happy Anniversary?

[myth-one.com]

Today, June 20th 2009, is the eighth anniversary of the sacrifice Andrea Yates made for her children. Had she not murdered them, Noah would be 15 years old, John would be 13, Paul 11, Luke 10, and Mary would be 8. Instead, they were murdered by their mother so they would go immediately to live with God eternally in the paradise of heaven, thus avoiding the possibility of eternal torment in hellfire.

Is this a victory for Christianity?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 105 by myth-one.com]

Hi, myth-one.com

"What's it all about, Alfie?"
- Burt Bacharach

So, other than the missing "J" you did write that. I quote people for a reason.

I wrote it out of frustration. I guess it was my way of saying "So what?"

Oh, I see.
Sometimes, it's easy to get frustrated in here.

Atheists and theists certainly don't see eye to eye on religious matters. Trying to understand each other is often frustrating. If you DO need clarification at any time, please just ask. I'm not sure what "so what" exactly refers to. I comment, object, and sometimes ask questions about what people write is "so what"...

Saying that someone is alive and dead at the same time is a sure sign of incoherence is "so what". But, as I stated, I don't exactly know what it IS you are frustrated about ... if you clarify that, perhaps I can make myself more understandable.

This forum was a way to draw attention to a very injurious, false, and deadly theological error taught by most Christian denominations -- the myth of the immortal soul.

Well, that's one possible motivation. I think open and honest debate was probably another.

Your post agreed that death is everlasting, the scriptures say a lot of things, you don't consider death sleep, you believe Jesus is a joker, you think watching grass grow is interesting, and atheists don't believe in gods.

Yes, I think you understood that very well.
I'm sorry if I caused you to be frustrated.

I'm not ALWAYS perfect, though. Just most of the time, baby. Hit me one more time.

It's not about me and you.

It's NOT?

I'm the one writing to you at this time.
And I think that you were writing to me.

But what we are supposed to be writing ABOUT is the topic of the thread.
I never loose sight of that.

So, I know "IT'S" not about you and I, but the topic.
Thanks for reminding all of us.

[1213]

Instead of accuse them of ignoring God's law, you should have said they came to a interpretation that you disagree strongly with.

Perhaps in this case it would be also good to explain what we mean by law. But to be more specific, they are ignoring that they are not Moses, or the judges that were set by God. It would be good to understand to whom the rules for judging were said.

I don’t ignore any part of the OT, but I know I am not judge, therefore I am not judging anyone.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to JLB32168]

So – Andrea Yates wouldn’t have developed psychotic issues had she been an atheist??

Would a person like Andrea Yates have had mental issues if she hadn't been taught all of her life to believe in a fantasy world? Mental disorders can be caused by many factors having little or nothing to do with religion, this is true. It is fair to conclude however that is was her religious training that caused her to reach the decision that killing her children was the best way to save them. We may consider her decision to do this a perversion, but the logic of it, though twisted, can actually be recognized to be an consistent with what she was trained to believe. If Andrea Yates had not been trained to believe that the innocent go to heaven to be with Jesus and that sinners go to hell, at least her children would still be alive. Even if her mental instability manifested itself in other ways.

The desire to eliminate religion as a numbing concept that allowed people to be exploited led to terrible actions as a consequence – liquefying the religious in communist countries.

No one is suggesting liquefying anyone. And no one is suggesting outlawing religion, or attempting to force any particular set of beliefs, or non beliefs, on anyone. Such actions are not only repugnant, they are a total waste of time. Religious people, especially Christians, feel that they have not only the right but the obligation to proselytize and to seek to expose their system of beliefs to others. They do it by sending missionaries to other countries, openly evangelizing, and through manipulating the democratic process through sheer numbers. Non believers do not seek to liquefy them for that. Non believers are intent on undermining religious beliefs from the ground up by exposing religious claims and religious beliefs for the nonsense that they have always been. Non believers are simply openly subjecting religious claims to actual scrutiny. If the claims of the religious are valid, they should welcome such scrutiny. The problem is, as you are observing, when subjected to actual scrutiny and examination through fact checking and appeals to reason and logic, religious claims actually come off quite poorly. They tend to fall apart like a cheap sweater in fact. The obvious reason for this is because these beliefs were never true and valid to begin with. And if that is the case, believers are struggling valiantly to defend and preserve a lie. At which point the question becomes, "is it better to subscribe to a comforting lie on faith, or should the goal be to try to discover what is actually true?" Another way of putting this is, "is it better to actually see and understand what is going on around you, or are you better off burying your head in the sand?"

The current trend towards non belief is unprecedented in human history. Those of you who choose the "bury your heads" solution will of course hold on to the bitter end. But the younger generations coming up simply are not buying into religion any more. If the current trend continues, the 21st century may be looked back on as the time when the religious were not liquefied, but simply died out because religious beliefs were no longer believable.

Any concept can lead to psychotic results. Singling out religion as the exclusive cause is axe-grinding.

As I already pointed out in post #103, "Living in a fantasy view of reality is being detached from reality. Being detached from reality is a form of psychosis. Psychotic beliefs run the risk, at least, of psychotic actions." If religious beliefs are not true, then they are a form of fantasy. Living in a fantasy world is not simply a potental path to insanity which may lead to psychosis. It is itself a type of psychosis. Does that mean that people are historically mentally ill? Look through the historical record at the actions humans have taken over the course of the centuries sometime. Psychotic beliefs and large scale mental illness explains must of it. Should we NOT seek to eliminate the causes for psychotic actions?

First of all, we’re debating what truth is here so you don’t get to proclaim your views are the true ones.

You are proclaiming that a corpse came back to life and flew away, based on a rumor spread around at the time by those who had been disciples of the corpse. I am proclaiming that there is no real reason to suppose that corpses can actually come back to life and fly away simply because some individuals claimed that it occurred. Objectively, which proclamation stands up better to reason and therefore obviously has the better chance of being on the path to truth?

Secondly, I’m not sure why “My child is dead and will rot in the ground� is better than “My child is in heaven and I’ll see him/her again.�

A dead child is an unspeakable tragedy. I doubt that I would survive the loss of one of my children. Most of us spend our lives assuming that our children will pass on after we do. But one of the facts of life that adults have to deal with is that all living things die. And sometimes children die before the parents. You are suggesting that subscribing to a fantasy is preferable to facing reality. Why not then promote taking the next step? If subscribing to a fantasy serves to dull the pain of loss, why not simply keep grieving people heavily medicated? That is guaranteed to eliminate the pain. But of course drugs are just another way of hiding from reality, aren't they?

I am a child of the 60's, so I grew up seeing my share of drug use. I never used any myself though. I have always preferred being in my right mind at all times and have never been a fan of hiding from reality. I suppose that it is fair to say that I consider seeking to hide from reality a weakness that invariably leads to other complications.

People cope with losing a child in different ways. It has recently become something of a fad for parents to have their deceased children cremated and then to spread their ashes in the Haunted Mansion at Disneyland. This works to give the parents comfort, but doesn't make Disney happy at all.

What makes it “better� – because it jibes w/your views?? We’re animals and it is comical that one animal presumes to tell another animals, “Your way is inferior to mine.�

Whether your way is inferior to mine or not is an opinion. I am simply pointing out all of the various reasons why your way represents utter nonsense when compared to the actual facts, reason and logic.

Here’s your reality. “Love� is a chemical reaction in the brain that’s linked more to reproducing and rearing children so that they’re able to find a mate and also reproduce.

This is true. It is also true that "love" provides distinct evolutionary survival advantages. Love can cause people to fight savagely to defend those that they love. Love can also cause people to systematically hunt down and kill predators which pose a threat to our loved ones. The elimination of dangerous animals is an evolutionary advantage that humans have taken enormous pains to realize. Our own survival and the survival of our loved ones has long taken precedence over the rights of other creatures.

And children are a lot of work. Especially babies. They deprive us of sleep, and they constantly smell bad and do disgusting things. And yet most of us would sacrifice ourselves to save one. The evolutionary advantages for the survival of our species that this feeling of "love" causes are enormous. It's so strong that the potential for insanity is one of it's downsides. But given the option of pure logic and love, I would take love. Because I am not a purely logical being myself.

And making no distinctions between Martin Luther King, Jr. and Norman Bates is a form of misanthropy and that leads to extermination of believers as dangerous to society and the revolution.

Was Norman Bates a religious psychopath? It's been awhile since I saw that movie. And you might take notice of the fact that Martin Luther King was violently opposed by the good God fearing Christian white people of the south, who used scripture taken directly from the Bible to denounce and oppose equal rights for blacks. And in fact slavery itself is condoned and supported in the Bible. Which makes perfect sense if the Bible was written by humans who considered slave owning a perfectly normal fact of life when the Bible was written. It makes less sense if it is true that God created all men equal and endowed them with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Now why is it that God didn't specifically say THAT in the Bible? Which caused us to have to wait for thousands of years for Thomas Jefferson, A NON BELIEVER in truth, to pen those sentiments? Even if Jefferson himself did not practice what he preached in his own private life? The truth just may be that humans have been struggling for centuries to pull themselves out from under their religious fairy tales and fantasies, in an effort to move forward into the light of pure reason and reality. And yet there have always been those struggling to pull us right back in again.

My bottom line here is that, in a contest of facts, logic and reason on a path to discovering what is genuinely true, I am willing to let the chips fall where they may. Are you confidant enough in your beliefs to make the same statement? Or would you suppress the entire discourse if you could?

[JLB32168]

Would a person like Andrea Yates have had mental issues if she hadn't been taught all of her life to believe in a fantasy world?

So Andrea Yates’ diagnosed mental illness was the result of religion? Do atheists develop mental illness?

Mental disorders can be caused by many factors having little or nothing to do with religion, this is true. It is fair to conclude however that is was her religious training that caused her to reach the decision that killing her children was the best way to save them.

But you said that her religion made her psychotic. How do you know she wouldn’t have killed her children? Do atheist parents never kill their children. They certainly have no problem doing it to religious adults when the latter don’t conform to state policy on counterrevolutionary activities such as attending a secret Divine Liturgy done by a priest in hiding.

No one is suggesting liquefying anyone.

You’re suggesting that a belief that millions of unfortunate parents have used to comfort themselves caused psychosis and as proof of this “highly dangerous belief� you brought an extreme example where a woman w/a diagnosed mental illness committed a horrible act.
Your arguments are without merit.

But the younger generations coming up simply are not buying into religion any more.

I’m not too concerned about that. In the days when religion was in no danger of disappearing Eastern Orthodox mystics were saying that belief in God would be under attack and eliminated from most places.

Living in a fantasy world is not simply a potental path to insanity which may lead to psychosis.

And yet, most of us theists aren’t psychotic and Europe is much more atheist and secularized and they suffer from depression and other mental illness at a much higher rate than countries were belief is higher.

You are proclaiming that a corpse came back to life and flew away, based on a rumor spread around at the time by those who had been disciples of the corpse.

No – you wish that was what I said. I’ve stated the belief and consistently said it was a belief that might not be true, but which might be fiction. You really need to rebut arguments that one actually makes and not these easier rebutted misrepresentations.

You are suggesting that subscribing to a fantasy is preferable to facing reality.

Why is your reality better? I know of one woman who buried a child and was not plunged into the depths of depression because of her belief that children go straight to heaven. What is the import of this woman’s alleged delusion on your life? How does it damage anyone?
Your way of coping is different. It’s not better (your protests to the contrary notwithstanding.)

Whether your way is inferior to mine or not is an opinion. I am simply pointing out all of the various reasons why your way represents utter nonsense when compared to the actual facts, reason and logic.

And embracing the reality is better because . . . why exactly?
Oh yeah – it jibes with your atheist worldview.

Our own survival and the survival of our loved ones has long taken precedence over the rights of other creatures.

You’re so very mechanical in your review of emotions. This is better because . . . .why exactly?

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 1 by myth-one.com]

If she would have killed them to prevent Santa Claus from putting coal in their stockings.............it would have had the same results.

A sad case of delusional actions.................

[myth-one.com]

So Andrea Yates’ diagnosed mental illness was the result of religion? Do atheists develop mental illness?

Has an atheist ever murdered their children in order to send them to heaven for all eternity to be with God?

You’re suggesting that a belief that millions of unfortunate parents have used to comfort themselves caused psychosis and as proof of this “highly dangerous belief� you brought an extreme example where a woman w/a diagnosed mental illness committed a horrible act.
Your arguments are without merit.

How many deaths of innocent children would make it an important issue to you?

The first one I heard about was when I was 6 years old in a Southern Baptist Sunday School class in Mississippi.

You are suggesting that subscribing to a fantasy is preferable to facing reality.

Why is your reality better? I know of one woman who buried a child and was not plunged into the depths of depression because of her belief that children go straight to heaven. What is the import of this woman’s alleged delusion on your life? How does it damage anyone?
Your way of coping is different. It’s not better (your protests to the contrary notwithstanding.)

Tired of the Nonsense is a non-theist.

All of us feel sorrow when these type of events occur -- theists and non-theists.

But I'm a Christian.

In addition to the universal sorrow felt due to the loss of these fellow humans, I have to cope with the concept that my religion was used to successfully justify the murders!

It is just incomprehensible to me that any Christian can argue for the logic which Andrea Yates and others use to justify their murders.

Similarly, Christians energetically debate and fight to protect the false theology that nonbelievers will spend eternity in extreme conscious torture in the fires of hell.

Then these same Christians will proclaim that "God is Love."

Duh?

[Clownboat]

This seems off topic.

It addresses the topic of the thread – the belief that innocents go to heaven w/o qualification. The assertion was made that a woman with obvious mental illness wouldn’t have killed her children had this belief not existed. It was suggested that this belief was a bad thing.

If you would stop quote mining me, you would know that this is not what I was addressing. The part you left out clearly explains this:
"This thread is not about why humans invented religions (for coping reasons and such like you astutely point out). "

Most of us believe this already, though I appreciate your supporting evidence that religions were invented for coping with the unknown.

Except that I don’t think that they were invented for that purpose.

Well, at least you recognize that they are a coping mechanism. So if not a coping mechanism, why were all the other religions that are not your own invented?
They help people to cope, but they were not invented to do what they do?

Is this specific coping mechanism worth it though? It can help people cope, but it is also a mechanism for things such as the Witch Trials and Andrea Yates. People need to cope sure, but at what cost?

Why cite extreme examples to prove a point – since it’s an illogical way to argue?

Meanwhile you down play the murder of thousands upon thousands of people that happened for no other reason than words from your holy book.
If your holy book only caused a few deaths here and there, we could call it extreme, but the witch trials alone caused many thousands to be killed. When it was happening, it was the norm, which made it not extreme, which is the point.
Sure, how noble of you to look back now and judge them as extreme, but I must wonder where you would have fallen had you been born during the witch trials.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 111 by 1213]

Were they really not judges set by God though? Or are you the one who is not recognising their God given authority?

You have your interpretation and they had theirs, they have their argument and you have yours. At the present time, yours is popular; back then, theirs was the favourite.

[JLB32168]

Has an atheist ever murdered their children in order to send them to heaven for all eternity to be with God?

Probably not, but what does that have to do with the fact that anyone who is severely mentally ill can find a reason to kill his/her children. It also doesn’t erase the fact that you’re appealing to an extreme example as a condemnation of all theist belief and suggest that theists are on the cusp of psychosis.

How many deaths of innocent children would make it an important issue to you?

More children die from immunizations than die because their parents want to send them to heaven. Why aren’t these people saying, “I’m shocked! SHOCKED I tell you!!� clamoring for the abolition of immunizations? Do the deaths of innocent children not make it important for them?

Tired of the Nonsense is a non-theist.

Um . . . okay. Why did you cite my whole post on why one way is better than the other? Non-theist/Atheist – there isn’t any appreciable difference between the two.

[1213]

[Replying to post 111 by 1213]

Were they really not judges set by God though? Or are you the one who is not recognising their God given authority?

You have your interpretation and they had theirs, they have their argument and you have yours. At the present time, yours is popular; back then, theirs was the favourite.

I don’t think I have interpretation. Bible says clearly that God charge judges:

I charged your judges at that time….
Deuteronomy 1:16-17

God has not charged me to be judge, so I have no right to judge according to Law of Moses, even if the Law says someone is guilty and deserves something.

Interesting thing is that according to the Bible also Jews seem to have understood that during the time Jesus was on earth, because:

Pilate therefore said to them, "Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law." Therefore the Jews said to him, "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,"
John 18:31