Please note: This is satire. I can understand how, given the style of writing, that it doesn’t appear that way. However, I have realized how poorly evident this is, hence this disclaimer. All comments below against this idea are correct. The point of this satire was to point out the invalidity of the joke mentioned in the first 2 lines of this post.
This question is more or less a joke within the atheist community, at least part of it. Atheists joke that the praying theist is hearing voices and is crazy. I became curious to see if this joke had any validity, after all, as the old saying goes, “a lot of truth is said in jest”. Much to my surprise, I found that the many varied symptoms of schizphrenia are exhibited by a majority of religious people. Of course not all of them exhibit all the signs/symptoms, and I am not a metal health doctor. However, it doesn’t take a doctor to recognize these as out of the ordinary behavioral/emotional problems. It is when one sees a collection of these symptoms that one would have this person taken to the nearest mental health facility. However, when someone slaps the label of religion on it, it is suddenly not a metal illness. Below is the list of behaviors I have personally seen exhibited by religious people I currently know and have had conversations with, along with some I’ve heard about from other’s experiences. It should be noted that the list of symptoms (http://www.schizophrenia.com/earlysigns.htm) is longer than the one below (but not by much).
Examples of Feelings/Emotions—-
–Feeling detached from your own body (depersonalization)–Hypersensitivity to criticism, insults, or hurt feelings
Examples of Mood—-
–Sudden irritability, anger, hostility, suspiciousness, resentment
Changes in Behavior associated with schizophrenia ——Inability to form or keep relationships–Social isolation- few close friends if any. Little interaction outside of immediate family.–Increased withdrawal, spending most of the days alone.–Becoming lost in thoughts and not wanting to be disturbed with human contact–Replaying or rehearsing conversations out loud- i.e. talking to yourself (very common sign)–Finding it difficult to deal with stressful situations–Inability to cope with minor problems–Functional impairment in interpersonal relationships, work, education, or self-care–Deterioration of academic or job-related performance–Inappropriate responses- laughing or smiling when talking of a sad event, making irrational statements.–Frequent moves, trips, or walks that lead nowhere
Examples of Cognitive Problems
–Ruminating thoughts- these are the same thoughts that go around and round your head but get you nowhere. Often about past disappointments, missed opportunities, failed relationships.–Making up new words (neologisms)–Becoming incoherent or stringing unrelated words together (word salad)–Frequent loose association of thoughts or speech- when one thought does not logically relate to the next. For example, “I need to go to the store to buy some band-aids. I read an article about how expensive AIDS drugs are. People take too many street drugs. The streets should be clean from the rain today, etc” The need to go to the store to buy band-aids is forgotten.–Lack of insight (called anosognosia). Those who are developing schizophrenia are unaware that they are becoming sick. The part of their brain that should recognize that something is wrong is damaged by the disease.–Racing thoughts –Trouble with social cues- i.e. not being able to interpret body language, eye contact, voice tone, and gestures appropriately. –Often not responding appropriately and thus coming off as cold, distant, or detached.–Difficulty expressing thoughts verbally. Or not having much to say about anything. –Speaking in an abstract or tangential way. Odd use of words or language structure–Difficulty focusing attention and engaging in goal directed behavior–Poor concentration/ memory. Forgetfulness–Nonsensical logic–Difficulty understanding simple things–Thoughts, behavior, and actions are not integrated –Conversations that seem deep, but are not logical or coherent
Examples of Delusions—-
The most common type of delusion or false beliefs are paranoid delusions. These are persecutory in nature and take many forms:
–Overpowering, intense feeling that people are talking about you, looking at you–Overpowering, intense feeling you are being watched, followed, and spied on (tracking devices, implants, hidden cameras)–Thinking people are working together to harass you–Thinking that something is controlling you- i.e. an electronic implant–Thinking that people can read your mind/ or control your thoughts–Delusions of reference- thinking that random events convey a special meaning to you. An example is that a newspaper headline or a license plate has a hidden meaning for you to figure out. That they are signs trying to tell you something. –Religious delusions- that you are Jesus, God, a prophet, or the antichrist.–Delusions of grandeur- the belief that you have an important mission, special purpose, or are an unrecognized genius, or famous person.
Examples of Hallucinations—-
–Hallucinations are as real as any other experience to the person with schizophrenia. As many as 70% hear voices, while a lesser number have visual hallucinations. –Auditory hallucinations can be either inside the person’s head or externally. When external, they sound as real as an actual voice. Sometimes they come from no apparent source, other times they come from real people who don’t actually say anything, other times a person will hallucinate sounds. –When people hear voices inside their heads, it is as if their inner thoughts are no longer alone. The new voices can talk to each other, talk to themselves, or comment on the person’s actions. The majority of the time the voices are negative.
No. I am not advocating that we round up all the religious people and institutionalize them. That would be plain stupid. However, what I am attempting to show is that religious thought operates like a mental illness. Religious thought must be challenged no matter how much they will kick and scream about their feelings being hurt because of it. “The time of respecting beliefs of this sort is long past”-Sam Harris, Idea City ’05
It’s that time of year again, gearing up for the semester. However, before we can talk about all our exciting plans and happenings over the summer we need to take care of some important business and inform you of some of the recent events, both past and upcoming, for Metro State Atheists.
IF ANYONE, AT ALL, HAS ANY OF THE BOOKS ON THIS THIS LIST (http://banned-books.com/bblist.html) AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM GO TO A WORTHY CAUSE PLEASE EMAIL ME AT METROATHEISTS@HOTMAIL.COM. WE WILL BE GIVING AWAY BOOKS FOUND ON THE BANNED BOOKS LIST IN EXCHANGE FOR FOOD DONATIONS. PLEASE HELP!
Joel Guttormson, President of Metro State Atheists, and Sara Diaz, future President of the new club UCD Atheists and Director of Media Relations for College Atheists of Colorado attended the 2009 CFI Student Leadership Conference at CFI Transnational headquarters in Amherst, NY June 26-28. Besides the conference being an inspiring and educational experience for us, Metro State Atheists won the 2009 Student Leadership Award for Community Impact!
Positions are open, Treasurer, Secretary and Representative. You can go to our blog for more info or email us at email@example.com if you are interested. (You must be a Metro State student at least in your second semester and carry a 2.0 GPA)
Sara Diaz is starting UCD Atheists to represent the many UCD students we, Metro State Atheists, currently represent. They are currently in need of more officers and 20 members. For more info email Sara Diaz at firstname.lastname@example.org and/or go to the website at ucdatheists.wordpress.com for more info on the requirements for being an officer. There will be a more detailed explanation of this in a separate special announcement within the next week.
Metro State Atheists is proud to announce that we are now affiliated with American Atheists.
On July 11th, President of Metro State Atheists, Joel Guttormson, appeared on the radio show Rational Alchemy, which broadcasts from Fort Collins, CO. You can listen to the show here. Subscribed to the podcast while you’re there!
Metro State Atheists have been invited by The Daniels Foundation/Project to network with other groups from Colorado. We are very excited to be part of this event. It will be on Saturday July 28th at 7pm. The event will be held in the Turhalle Room inside the Tivoli Student Union on the Auraria Campus. Below the Daniels Foundation Mission Statement and the link to the website.
The Daniels Fund Mission
In the benevolent and entrepreneurial spirit of our founder, Bill Daniels, our mission is to partner with individuals, organizations, and communities to recognize inherent value, develop abilities, and provide opportunities in order to fulfill our collective potential.
A world where every individual has an equal opportunity to live a healthy, productive life.
We embrace and will adhere to the fundamental principles embodied by our founder.
We are committed to a tradition of excellence and will exemplify the highest standards of integrity, honesty and ethical conduct in all we do.
As individuals and as an organization, we believe our success depends upon our ability to listen and appropriately respond to the people and communities we serve and to remain aware of ever-changing issues and ideas. We are committed to continual learning and self-assessment in order to be the best we can be.
We acknowledge and honor the fundamental value and dignity of all individuals. We pledge ourselves to creating and maintaining an environment that respects diverse traditions, heritages, and experiences.
We believe that boundless opportunity can exist for each and every individual. We will constantly strive to act courageously and think imaginatively in order to make such opportunities available throughout our community.
Below is a conversation I had with several people (who’s names have been concealed for privacy) on Facebook. Watch and see why it is almost impossible to joke with committed Christians. I didn’t edit this convo too much, besides concealing the names, only those comments that weren’t invloved in talking to me have been removed, other than that…it’s all there. Enjoy
Evangelical Friend (EF)- I got my license (FB Status)
Just one more driver-less car come the Rapture…oh wait…we don’t have to worry about something that isn’t going to happen…whew…I was scared there for a second
Friend of EF #1
You put a lot of effort into things that aren’t true.
Prove me wrong Stephen.
Friend of EF #1
1 Thessalonians 4:15-17
Stephen. The bible isn’t proof. You’re using circular reasoning. Please try again.
Friend of EF
Pearls before swine, love. Pearls before swine.
That doesn’t make sense. If you’re calling me a pig, that is quite the intelligent, thoughtful, Christian thing to do…ad hominim.
Friend of EF #2
LOL! It’s an expression. Google it or something. 😉 Goodnight!
Or…don’t be 7 years old.
Friend of EF #2
Oh ho ho… Ad hominim, much? Joel….
To stick with the animal metaphors: what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. But I really was talking about your conduct rather than you, so it really doesn’t qualify as ad hominim, please look up the definition of words before you use them.
Friend of EF #3
Joel, if you don’t like Christians, why do you like to start arguments with them?
I didn’t start an argument. I said something clever, you guys got pissed. Grow a sense of humor, please.
And for the record, I do like Christians.
Friend of EF #3
That does suck how quickly arguments get started on here…And sounds fair enough to me Joel.
Thank you, Chris. I like you for this very reason.
Friend of EF #3
And I do have to apologize, you didn’t start an argument, one just kind of…appeared…The only reason people got upset was because you were mocking our beliefs, same as you would feel if we mocked yours about something =/
I see and I understand. But in all seriousness I was only kidding around, as I usually am. Beliefs that are held to sacred make people crazy, stuffy and not fun to be around.
Friend of EF #4 (The Angry, Irrational One)
joel you’re seriously retarded. grow up. stop starting ridiculous arguments on something that has nothing to do with Christians at all. she got her license.. leave her alone.
good job EF! congrats! 🙂 do you have a car?
Sara, please see Chris’ comments and my responses to them. Get over yourself and get a sense of humor. I also appreciate the very Christian, thoughtful and intelligent ad hominim attack, great stuff. It’s original to call someone “retarded”. If your beliefs aren’t strong enough to stand up to a little ribbing now and again, get some new beliefs.
Friend of EF #4 (The Angry, Irrational One)
haha. you are a retard. thats why i called you that. you have no idea what you are talking about. leave danae alone. my beliefs are never threatened by your silly little jabs filled with words you find in a thesaurus. grow up. leave young girls you don’t know alone. i will NEVER understand why danae still has you as a friend.. or puts up with the drama you start. DANAE: you can’t help anyone who doesn’t want to be helped. delete him.
Quite judgmental for a Christian. Funny how you don’t know me at all and yet can claim all these things. I don’t use a thesaurus for my vocabulary, thank you, but I digress. For someone like you who resorts to childish ad hominim to tell me to grow up is the beginning of a good joke. Ya know, you could understand if you asked her…but since you’re a Christian I guess you’ve been discouraged from asking questions your whole life, just a guess though. I have more knowledge about your silly religion, called Chrsitianity, in my pinky, that you do in your whole body. Have a good night and be safe.
Friend of EF #4 (The Angry, Irrational One)
Christians are judgmental. they should be. there’s even a book called “Judges” in the Bible. next time do your research before claiming to know so much. And for someone so anti-judgement, you are pretty quick to say since i am a Christian, i have been discouraged to ask questions about life. man, you really are dumber than i thought…
Friend of EF # 5
Way to go! That is awesome! And I am saying that to both EF and Friend of EF #4 (The Angry, Irrational One)
Abortion is one of the most controversial issues of our time. Like most controversies, there exist two main sides that seem diametrically opposed to each other. However, I believe that in this conflict there is a way for both sides to work together towards a common goal that will benefit both human life and society for the long term. Before continuing it is important to clarify where each side stands. Those on the “pro-life” side assert that abortion is morally wrong. This is usually, but not always, based on the assertion that God (usually the Christian god) has a purpose for all human beings and that the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception. If one holds these assertions as truth it isn’t difficult to feel some sympathy to for their position. For those who stand on the side of being “pro-choice”, abortion is seen as primarily a medical procedure. Further, most “pro-choicers” would say that it should be a last resort only after all other options and factors such as personal socioeconomic situation and health have been carefully considered. This is because abortion, by its very nature, is intrusive, can lead to irreparable damage to the reproductive abilities of the woman and can have severe emotional side-effects (similar to those of women who have miscarried, ie. natural abortion). Therefore, they see abortion as a choice but one that should be used sparingly.
One side feels it is absolutely wrong while the other sees it as treatment and thus not completely wrong. Most of the “pro-choice” and “pro-life” individuals I have known through the years would generally agree with this summary of their general views on the subject. However, there are extremists on both sides. Carl Sagan[i] said of them, “doubtful arguments are trotted out as certitudes”. Thus, it would appear that there is little possibility of reconciliation between the sides. One side feels it is absolutely wrong while the other sees it as treatment and thus not completely wrong. How then could they be convinced to work together? To what common goal could they possibly work towards? To begin, I point out that both sides can agree that abortion is at minimum, undesirable. With this minor agreement as a foundation let us consider other procedures past and present that have either been eradicated from medical practice or are presently being phased out due to current medical therapies/treatments/advances.
For simplicity, let us consider another undesirable medical practice that is less controversial, at least ethically; amputation. Surgical amputations “date back at least to the time of Hippocrates (c.460-375 B.C.), amputating limbs to save lives did not become widespread until the sixteenth century.”(Source) Obviously, amputations “were performed mainly to remove tissue that was already dead. The reason for this limitation is that early surgical techniques could not control the blood loss.” (Source) Advances were made in surgical practices to prevent this hemorrhaging such as tying off the arteries. (Source) Amputation is an extreme medical practice which, over time given medical advances, decreases in use relative to the population. In a 1998 article in the journal “Diabetes Care”, Andrew D. Morris, MD et.al. found that “rates in the U.S. Amputation rates appear to have decreased significantly since 1980–1982.”(Source) The reason given for the decrease was education about diabetes and advances in care. Another study found that “[t]he frequency of major amputations in the country in 1986-87 of 40.9 per 100,000 per year declined by 25% to 30.9 per 100,000 per year in 1989-90.”(Source), stating further that “vascular surgery reduces the number of major lower limb amputations.”(Source) Given these and many other examples, it is clear that medical advances both in practice and education are responsible for a great deal of the reduction in the use of such an invasive, life-altering, and extreme medical procedure.
How does this relate to abortion? Not only is abortion undesirable, it is also invasive, life-altering and extreme. Thus, just as with the case of amputation; where instead of targeting the practice itself the causes were targeted, we should strive to eliminate the causes of abortions as much as possible. Abortion is obviously necessary in certain cases such as fallopian-tube babies, that if left to go to term, would kill the mother. Furthermore, just as education about diabetes helped in the reduction of amputations, so too can better sex education and the elimination of “abstinence-only” education reduce the need for abortions among ignorant or accident-prone young people. The following quote from Carl Sagani drives this point home: “Shouldn’t opponents of abortion be handing out contraceptives and teaching school children how to use them? That would be an effective way to reduce the number of abortions.” Though it is true that you can’t prevent or solve all amputations, so too will we not be able to end all abortions. That is where technology and research is vital. However, we can, if we work together instead of fighting about who believes what, we can end most abortions by using sound judgment and trusted preventative practices to treat the causes rather than the treatment.
At this point I anticipate some resistance from those extreme pro-lifers who view contraception as evil and won’t have anything to do with it citing that it is God’s will that we end abortion. This argument seems fraught with logical problems. 1) If God chooses when we are born and when we die, then why couldn’t abortion be a tool of God? 2) If it’s God’s will that abortions end then shouldn’t he be offering a solution to us without us asking? 3) If it’s God’s will that we end abortion, could it be that his will includes research as described above and through His divine grace provide us an answer via data collected in such studies? In any case, it would seem to be in the best interest of even the most hardcore pro-lifer to work together with pro-choicers and to utilize sound and moral science to reduce the number of abortions. Instead of killing abortion doctors why not try putting them out of business in a more constructive and less violent way, and donate to an organization or research project that is attacking one of the many causes of abortions. That will accomplish far more than squabbling amongst each other about who’s right and who’s wrong. The truth is, neither group is right by themselves, they are only right together.
In summary, my hope is that I’ve made it clear to pro-choicers that pro-lifers are not all a bunch of scripture-spouting nut-bars that are out to turn the country into a theocracy. Also, pro-lifers are truly concerned about human life, just as much as any pro-choicer. The problem lies in the question of when “human” life begins. This question is not as clear-cut as both sides would like it to be, therefore the concerns of the pro-lifers about ending human life is a painful decision that is not completely baseless from a scientific point of view. Also, I’ve hope I’ve made it clear to pro-lifers that not all pro-choicers are malicious baby killers that care only for the reproductive rights of women and care nothing of potential human beings. There isn’t a single person that is truly for abortion, but one way to rid ourselves of it as much as possible is embracing science and giving medical research a chance to find the cure for the causes of abortion in an effort to greatly reduce the practice.
 ANDREW D. MORRIS, MD; RITCHIE MCALPINE, BSC; DOUGLAS STEINKE, BSC; DOUGLAS I.R. BOYLE, BSC; ABDUL-RAHIM EBRAHIM; NAVEEN VASUDEV; COLIN P.U. STEWART, MD; ROLAND T. JUNG, MD; GRAHAM P. LEESE, MD; THOMAS M. MACDONALD, MD ; RAY W. NEWTON, FRCP.
[i] In an article that first appeared in Parade magazine on April 22, 1990 entitled “The Question of Abortion: A Search for Answers”, quoted here from his book Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death the Brink of the Millennium (1997). The article appears as Chapter 15 entitled “Abortion: Is it Possible to be both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice?”