Francisco Ayala,critic of creation ism and theistic evolutionist , avers that the religious need a deity in order to overcome the dread of death and to find a meaning for life. Those people need counseling to overcome that dread . I am my own meanings. I need no deity whatsoever! John Hick avers that that atheist contradict themselves when they would die for others. He sets up the straw man of egotism. He has dread that without a religion of any sort would behave worse. Look at the religious: they behave no better than we do. And pastors love toput dread into others with their nonsense that we have a yearning for a deity.Freud and Albert Ellis have maintained that religion is a neurosis.[ any sort people would ] Fellow skeptics ,do you find that the religious exhibit such a neurosis?

griggs 1947: Having the ability to "draw a crowd"(more like an angry mob at times), I figured that I'd help out your dying thread. Oooh, sorry...did I mention "dying"?

IS THERE A COUNSELOR IN THE HOUSE!

SOMEONE HELP ME, PLEASE!

About your suggested neurosis:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/neurosis

neurosis
One entry found for neurosis.

Main Entry: neu·ro·sis
Pronunciation: nu-'rO-s&s, nyu-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural neu·ro·ses /-"sEz/
Etymology: New Latin
: a mental and emotional disorder that affects only part of the personality, is accompanied by a less distorted perception of reality than in a psychosis, does not result in disturbance of the use of language, and is accompanied by various physical, physiological, and mental disturbances (as visceral symptoms, anxieties, or phobias)

It seems to me, upon reading several of your posts, that YOU have a serious neurosis where Christians are concerned.
Isn't this correct? Sure it is. Have a nice day.

P.S. BOO!

God...

Psychiatrists had an experiment called the science of God. It states that only people with psychosis and epilepsy will have the ability to have a deep sense of God and to escape from consciousness to a dimension where God can be visibly seen.

Now, religion is a talent.

I think griggs dislike the news too, newguy. Diety???!!! Shut it off, for God's sake!!!!!!

We don't need counseling because we're intelligent enough...

I'm just going to quickly vent that I had a conversation on another forum a bit ago with one of the more frustrating "christians" (who I think give christianity a bad name) that more or less flat out said atheists are incapable of selfless acts and that they have a "to hell with everyone else" attitude, whereas christians are inherently selfless and can be nothing else. I tried to get the guy to realize the hypocracy of some of what he was saying - namely that it's entirely self centered to hold your own beliefs as so unquestionably meritous that anyone else not sharing them will go to hell, and secondly that atheists likely never even invented the idea of hell, so they couldn't wish anyone there, nor would they likely even care one way or another if someone wants to believe in some etherial God. Isn't it entirely in ones self interest to want to go to heaven? If someone acts charitably in some fashion does it matter (or deserve insults) whether they did it for God or for some personal reason? I think most people place their self interests above most other interests, and I don't think that's necessarily bad either ... as long it doesn't justify destruction of others interests.

Anyway it was just an entirely insulting, close minded, repetition of various "facts" the guy claimed and he accepted virtually no debate and told me I'd have to take up any complaints over it with God (I bet God just loves being pegged as deserving the blame for such a poor character). I shouldn't care really as I'm not a God proponent but I have some sympathy for other christians (I'm thinking mostly of some of my relatives of, I'm certain, a different denomination as well as my personal belief that christianity should include moral values that are beneficial to a society) who end up being stereotyped poorly by the actions of some other self proclaimed christians. I recognize there's b.s. that goes both ways and many times christians can also be treated poorly but most of it stems from single minded people on both sides of the camp who assume there's little room in the world for anyone else. It's fine if someone believes they have perfect answers to everything but obviously if this extends to being a jerk in how you treat others then it's likely what goes around, comes around. It's just a shame ... and then I become the blowhard too in response. Oh well, it's one thing to try to promote some moral ideals, it's an entirely different and more difficult prospect to live by them. I'm not goint to try to claim Godlike attributes but it seems insulting when someone who appears to represent worse morals claims to speak for God (shouldn't that be reserved as the pinnacle of some ideology? Or more realistically, IMO, God should be allowed to speak for himself ... of course people will claim that the Bible is the "Word of God" but when you consider that this "Word" had God doing things like asking people to kill their own child as a selfless sacrifice to God, it makes you wonder if the Bible really does speak for God. I'd assume God wouldn't need to play any such cruel jokes on people to demonstrate their faith). I don't want to be overly harsh on christians but there are entirely too many who lay claim to this title without representing much of any of the ideals you'd assume should attached to it.

I've read them often enough myself but have some questions. First of all though, I'd like to thank each and every one of them for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your posts, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws as outlined in the Bible and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in Her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this for us please?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How, in your opinion, should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? -Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan,

MarkG

Thanks Mark for the Buy-bull lesson. [I printed it.] Now do the religious show dread or does that apply to only some of them .Ellis would say all .They just cannot take it that the polyverse is just an ultimate fact. How about those who proclaim their god is the ground of being? I t seems to me that is just obscurantism ,showing dread , so they just have to have a god of some sort .

Actually, I think most atheists subscribe to evolution and 'selfless acts' are acts which help promulgate the species, and for many people, it's instinct to protect women and young, hardwired into our genes. Most athiests I've known are pretty selfless as a whole.

Compare this to theists who are selfless because they want a reward because they must give it thought. I don't think either has a choice in reality, acts of unthinking selflessness (diving into a pool to save a drowning person, running into a fire to save a child, diving over rails to knock someone out of the way of a train) generally don't give the respondant time to think before acting anyway.

I read an article a while ago about a man who lost his legs knocking his dog off a railroad track. I don't think he thought about it, because as much as he loved his dog, that dog would only live another 5 years in it's natural lifespan, while he will live without legs for at least 50 more years, I believe he was in his 20s.

Was this a 'selfless' act? Most people would say so. I don't know how grateful the dog would be given that his master wasn't able to see him for a good chunk of his remaining life because he was in surgery and therapy, and no longer able to play with him for some time after.

What thinking person would put 5 years of a dog's life ahead of 50 years of his own if he were to think about it? The dog may not even have died to the train.

If it's not hard-wired, what is it?

On the other hand, that's the need to act NOW type of selflessness. What about thinking selflessness? Why would the guys in the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania stop the terrorists from crashing into the White House? They had to think, then act. Because survival of the nation, survival of the many outweighted the needs of the few?

This doesn't require religion to appreciate.

I did not qoute the rest simply to save space. Mark you have fallen into the simple trap that all those who do not read the bible or fully understand the purpose of the law fall into. Let me give you some scripture from the new testament that may help you understand that we are no longer under the mosaic law, that it was given only to the Jews, is given to help us gain an understanding/knowledge of sin and in fact does not apply to Christians today because Christ has already fulfilled and given us a New Testament, or Covenant, that we adhere to.

Matthew 5:17 “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

Christ came to fulfill the law, and he did so, and so the law is fulfilled and it is no longer required that we follow it.

Romans 3:20 “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”

No one can keep the law and thus they cannot be justified by it. The law’s purpose was to show us the holiness of God and thus give us knowledge of sin.

Romans 6:14 “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace”

We are no longer under the law, since Christ fulfilled it, but rather we are under grace.

Romans 10:4 “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”

Here again we see Christ fulfilled the law for us and hence we need only believe on him.

Galatians 2:16 “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”

Again the law gave us knowledge of sin but we are no longer obligated to follow it.

Read through Galatians 3 and you will get more of a picture of what the purpose of the law was.

When Christ came and died for us we were given a new covenant and thus the commands that we are to follow are those made by Christ and his apostles in the rest of the New Testament. That is why there is an Old Testament and a New Testament; the old covenant was the law, the new covenant one of belief and faith in Christ.

Fact is Mark the law does not apply to us today though we can glean principles about God's holiness from it. The commnads that were given were given to show that God takes sin very seriously and not only that but He judges it directly and swiftly. The law also was given only to the Jews in their day as they were God's chosen people and it was designed to demonstarte the difference between the one true God and those "gods" that were worshipped by the nations round about.

Ignorance of the bible is what leads you to the conclusions to which you have sprung and I think you should consider what the bible says in context before you post again.

Oh Mark G! Fantastic. Just beautiful. That made milk squirt out my nose. There are a couple of threads here that could use this posted holus bolus. Beware the response of the Gilksman!

It appears our friend MarkG is not above a bit of plagarism.

http://skeptically.org/againstreligion/id3.html

I'm not too sure I would consider him an authority on morality.

Tsk, Mark - you should always give your sources mate. Unless you are Jerry
of course.

Hey, what's the matter MarkG? Just another "mindless follower" of someone else? Seems so. If you ever do have any questions OF YOUR OWN, then please feel free to ask them. In the meantime, have a nice "plagiarizing" day, won't you?

I must admit, I know a number of theists who seem to be always saying that we're going to hell unless we repent to the lord almighty. So, from that perspective, I understand the post.

But in all honesty, God for myself and alot of Christians that I know (and I apologise, but I only know christianity) view God as our saviour, not condemer. God is the only way that I've been able to get through parts of my life, and I view him more as a friend, making my life better, and more fufilled.

So why I understand the post, I'm am inclined to disagree with the generalisation.

Actually...you proceeded to quote Jesus once...and Paul several times.
The quote from Jesus is weak, since it doesnt explicitly claim that we no longer have to follow the law.
Im sorry, I might have missed something...but are you a follower of Jesus or of Paul?
Let us look at the quote from Jesus quickly....

QUOTE

Mark you have fallen into the simple trap that all those who do not read the bible or fully understand the purpose of the law fall into. Let me give you some scripture from the new testament that may help you understand that we are no longer under the mosaic law, that it was given only to the Jews, is given to help us gain an understanding/knowledge of sin and in fact does not apply to Christians today because Christ has already fulfilled and given us a New Testament, or Covenant, that we adhere to.