Derail-YaY Religion

[Eliza Thomason]

As to the ugly priest jokes and intolerant generalizations about all priests because of the sins of some, I find them very offensive. But I excuse you because of your gross ignorance on the topic.

First of all I am not minimizing abuse. NO ABUSE is ever okay. I am just straightening out the skewed facts on the topic, so no one needs to bear false witness again. I realize its normal to parrot things you hear in the news, and if a lie is repeated enough you tend to believe its true. So I am just confronting lies with facts here.

You probably don't know there are more Protestant pastor sex offenders than Catholic priest offenders. As a convert about the time the priestly scandals were all the news, my Protestant friends wondered how I could be Catholic, what with all this scandal. Accordign to the media, Catholics were the biggest offenders! (No, just the biggst scapegoats with the biggest pockets due to numbers and organization.) I did need answers, and I did get them. Also later I got the facts, such as these below:

You probably don't know that the sexual abuse well over FIVE TIMES HIGHER for public school teachers than for priests. Yes! And in some places, more! According to a report by the NYS Special Commissioner of Investigation, the pedophile abuse rate for New York City school teachers is TEN TIMES HIGHER that priestly abuse!!!

Another fact: Your chance of being accused of pedophile abuse is much, much lower is you are a male priest than just a male. 4% is you are a priest (and there is money and fame to be had in that accusation!) If you are just any male? 10-20%!!!!

So there are the facts that you are ignorant of. So you have no excuse now.

So if you must make generalizations about persons probably being pedophiles, its only fair and logical to make them about public school teachers and males in general.

Hkkr, re: this:

Certainly of greater merit then a man who defends a predator, and blames the victims....

and this:

...vs the vanity that characterize Father Benedict Groshel.

I cannot imagine why you would say Father Groshel is a man of vanity. Your rush to judgement there is in error.

Fatehr Groshel has spent years counseling sinners. The worst cases go to him. He has compassion for sinners. He is in his 80s and is post major, major car accident at an elderly age. He has lived a life of service and compassion for the hurting and is known for his great humility. He has never been accused of vanity as far as I can see. As a psychologist and a man who respects the dignity of the downtrodden, its his way to see sinners as "poor". He said a wrong thing but if you see it in context, any person of reason would not judge his life on that.

If you could read the following, it would offer some perspective on Father Groshel, sorely lacking in mainstream media. But we regular Americans know and respect men like him, and just roll our eyes at attempts to tear down what/who is truly good: http://catholiclane.com/my-personal-...hels-comments/

It seems to me she is judging based on the history of the organization you belong to, rather than anything about one individual. And that seems entirely fair and reasonable to me.

I get it, but she is misguided, ignorant of our true history. As you can see from the above facts, it would be much more fair and reasonable to put down all males, and start a rant blog about all public school teachers...

[Absurd]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/confessions...ry?id=16474982

Threads like these aren't that bad, one can learn things about people, the differences they accentuate which do not seem to be differences.

[Eliza Thomason]

I am Christian, Eliza, and therefore not anti-Christian (since it is your understanding that all attacks are based on anti-religious sentiments). All I was trying to achieve was to make you realize that it's not compassionate or loving to insult people. I am actually a bit sad that you never quite stepped back to see where I might be coming from. All you did accuse me of being anti-Christian, which, which actually is a bit offensive in that it shows a disrespect for my religion and beliefs.

I am sorry I have been offensive and I am too overwhelmed right now to revisit our back and forth - which I found particularly overwhelming. I just need time and space before I can re-evaluate it. I am sorry if I accused you of being anti-Christian, I don't remember that, but I am not saying either that you are making things up. To me it seemed like a left-field unexpected attack, as if you were trying to fit me into your own biases. Maybe I am wrong! I will look at it again sometime, just I need a break from it. A littel time and space will have me thinking clearer. I hope for now you will accept a rather sorry just plain "sorry".

You can't be serious. Maybe they "do more" collectively, but one person just going about doing their own thing and feeling all self-righteous about it does NOT equal the contributions of a Nobel Prize winner. That's why we give them PRIZES: because they DO more than us average Joe's and plain Janes.

A piece of advice: less hyperbole/exaggeration will help you sound more sincere to the skeptical atheist crowd, assuming you do ACTUALLY care about building a bridge.

Build a bridge of any kind would make me glad. That you can even attribute that possibility to me after I have offended people here encourages me.

Actually I am being totally 100% sincere about everyday heroes being my heroes and I truly believe they do far, far more for society. Yes, we need presidents, good ones, and the people who do things worth winning awards for, too. But to me, people who can live everyday real life well are the real heroes! Its not easy to make the right choices, unseen, in every day life. There is no higher calling than being a parent. The attentiveness needed for infants and toddlers is huge. And you can ignore them too, and they will give in to despair and stop crying for their needs since they know they won't be met. And then they grow and still need your attentiveness in new and everchanging ways. It happens in every kind of home, rich and poor, but there are self-sacrificing loving parents in rich and poor homes too and they are heroes.

A stable loving family takes commitment, effort and unselfishness and turns out stable, loving adults who make positive contributions in their circles, who go on to have children who do the same, and the circle of giving gets wider and wider. One stable loving good couple can effect hundreds and hundreds of lives over generations. They literally make the world a better place. And I say couples - that is best for children - but things don't always work out ideally and I admire so much those who do their best in less than perfect situations. I also see parents who are all about themselves and I see their lonely kids in school and I try to look away and not judge (they were probably never parented properly themselves), but I feel sad for the children, disobedient, troubled children who did not get the start in life they deserved.

I hope this is sounding less like hyperbole because it is not. That ever-popular Jimmy Stewart movie everyone watches at Christmas-time, Its a Wonderful Life, is popular because it depicts what family should ideally be, imperfect, humble loving people trying to live good lives, who do the right thing day to day even if it costs them, who would be turning great children out into the world who influence people positively with their lives. Who make the world a better place.

I see everyday parents as heroes, many struggle also in bad marriages, and in my mind, those who can do the right thing in a hard situation make the world a better place, and Heaven will be peppered with them, where they will be admired as the hero's they truly are. Nobel Peace Prize winners will be at their feet, saying, 'Tell me how you managed!"

Then there are the parents doing their best with handicapped children, there are people trying to do the best they can with physical aliments and mental disorders. These are everyday heroes no one is giving prizes and acclaim to that I admire.

[Absurd]

Eliza, ask Gilly whether or not he has been molested as a child by his father.

[mu4]

Hkkmr and others who feel offended by me, I would like to apologize for the level of my offense taken. I have wondered for some time why in some places, particularly this place, there is such rampant intolerance for any mention of one's own religious beliefs. Athesist beliefs - fine - these are okay - go on with your anti-God theories all you want, mock believers, proselytize athesim all you want, but if a person dares mention God as a motivation for anything one does than they can expect a swift rude attacks, and this is "normal" certain places, here included. Its not fair if you can talk about what is on your mind and what matters to you and what you value, but only if its anti-religion, and if its pro you are atttacked. Unfairness tends to get me going. And I fight it only because I believe that people however hostile or rude they may act at times, at heart, value fairness.

For thousands of years voicing one's religions beliefs that may have offended the majority could have resulted in death. For the majority of Christian history, heresy and blasphemy were crimes punishable by various tortures and even death. I would say a few choice words is nothing. The world is changing, people can voice their beliefs and have these debates and disagreements without the threat of physical harm. People get to speak what they want now and that's the way I hope it remains. Mocking god and religion will get still you no-where, the primary dialogue in the US is still religious. But many people no longer fear to speak their mind and in time they will find their voice.

Criticism is important, there are many places where religion is not criticized, and people live under the oppression of theocracy and oppressive regimes. And not just atheists, but also christians, jews and other religious individuals. You are free to evangelize here, but others will be free to criticize your beliefs.

It is not fair to imply that Christian charity is somehow less, because of some "pretense". Christians sincerely believe in the risen Christ and believe and act on His call to follow Him, imitate Him, and do for Him whom they love because He said, such as "When you do it for the least of these, you do it for me." It would be wrong to say Christian charity is a better kind of charity, only that each kind of charity has its own motivation. Rooted in love is best, don't you agree?

Giving food out of love is giving food out of love, giving food in exchange for a prayer is bribery. Each situation has it's own characteristic.

Maybe, but YOU TOO!!!

I don't blame, as I said all institution are fallible, but some pretend to be divinely infallible. I see many forms of religious belief as dead, and is only ritualistic worship which has no moral or ethical authority.

I will often think fondly of Mother Theresa, St. Francis of Assisi, Pope John Paul II and compare my sorry life to their soaring ones and think of how far I could go if only I could pry myself free of myself and let God do a thing or two with me. But right now I could not name a single Nobel Peace Prize winner. But each to his own!

I don't see these as terrible people, but I don't see them as saints or divine either. They're just people.

I think Clara Barton(founder of the american Red Cross) is more important or at least just as important as Mother Theresa, so is Florence Nightingale, another unitarian(possibly gay as well).

Regardless, they valued deed not creed, not titles, not divine recognization, not missionary work.

[Kim]

I am sorry I have been offensive and I am too overwhelmed right now to revisit our back and forth - which I found particularly overwhelming. I just need time and space before I can re-evaluate it. I am sorry if I accused you of being anti-Christian, I don't remember that, but I am not saying either that you are making things up. To me it seemed like a left-field unexpected attack, as if you were trying to fit me into your own biases. Maybe I am wrong! I will look at it again sometime, just I need a break from it. A littel time and space will have me thinking clearer. I hope for now you will accept a rather sorry just plain "sorry".

It's ok, I am not that offended, really. I think stepping back and maybe revisiting later with a bit of distance might be a good idea.

[Eliza Thomason]

Eliza, ask Gilly whether or not he has been molested as a child by his father.

Oh, dear. How sad. It really is family members who are the biggest offenders, more than teachers, and anyone who abuses their sacred role as a parent and hurts little ones entrusted to them have so much to answer to God for.

I am going to say something as a point of information alone. If anyone reads this and thinks that cannot possibly be true, that I am a weirdo freak for suggestion such a thing, I won't be offended in the least. But Jesus heals hearts; He did on earth and He still does today. This is huge damage to a heart and God the Great Lover cares about hearts and wants to heal them and He does heal them. There are many ministries that specialize in just this. I know, I had a major overhaul of an inner healing a year ago next month, different issues but we live in a broken world of broken people and some of the worst damage happens from birth to the age of reason. And beyond of course. At any rate I am a different person. The ministry I went to is based out west but has many pilot ones around this country, and others; I went a state away. Oh and that ministry does a lot with bi-polar and multiple personalities. So if anyone is interested for themselves or anyone they know, or just out of weird curiosity about what some Christians believe and do, then go ahead and PM me and I will tell you about it (and I won't be asking for any follow-up or anything!).

[Absurd]

Oh, dear. How sad. It really is family members who are the biggest offenders, more than teachers, and anyone who abuses their sacred role as a parent and hurts little ones entrusted to them have so much to answer to God for.

Yes, I still can't fathom how this could happen to him.

[rat1]

I somewhat agree that the original comment sparking all this was out of place, but why does no one recognize it was in response to absurd using gayness as an obscenity for an offensive joke? That is as degrading toward gays as someone rebuking it. If the point of absurds comment is to offend, why are you surprised when eliza senses this and reacts with offense? The only reason you all focused in on eliza in the first place is not defense for the gays; else you'd of rebuked absurd; it is that she denounced offensiveness. You people love offensiveness and don't want your right to spew trash out of your mouths threatened. So you focus in on her and shield yourself with humanitarian lies of defending the gays. You are all worthless liars.

[Absurd]

I somewhat agree that the original comment sparking all this was out of place, but why does no one recognize it was in response to absurd using gayness as an obscenity for an offensive joke? That is as degrading toward gays as someone rebuking it. If the point of absurds comment is to offend, why are you surprised when eliza senses this and reacts with offense? The only reason you all focused in on eliza in the first place is not defense for the gays; else you'd of rebuked absurd; it is that she denounced offensiveness. You people love offensiveness and don't want your right to spew trash out of your mouths threatened. So you focus in on her and shield yourself with humanitarian lies of defending the gays. You are all worthless liars.

You sure are adept at reading me. I mean, most of you would even know what I'm saying me not even saying anything at all. You win at Internet, crazie rat, once again

And I see you left this place for good as your PM stated. Oh and yes, I would like to see any one rebuking what I wrote towards Eliza. Try me.

Anyway, this is really a pathetic attempt at proving something that even isn't there, crazie rat. You've got a split titled Derail-YaY-Religion and, heh, you accuse me of what exactly - the fact I did tinker with it knowing Eliza's stance on it, knowing the Roman Catholic Church's stance on it, knowing most religious stances on same sex stuff.

It is akin to accusing the accuser for accusing/rebuking the rebuker for rebuking. You've got plenty of people who threw stones like mad cows first and I do not see you playing the humanist, ergo Eliza gets offended for exactly what - "the defence of gays"?

[rat1]

You provoking eliza is convenient for your nature. You've made gay jokes on many occasions, not just to eliza. You've never been attacked for it to my knowledge. But provoking a religious argument over gays isnt much of a defense, the conflict harms all the same.

[Absurd]

you've made gay jokes on many occasions, not just to eliza. Even so, intending to provoke a religious argument over gays isnt better.

You've made jokes about other quadras and people in them, many people did. Wake up. And those jokes as you call them aren't mine. Provoke, god damn, that's some strong language on a socionics forum like this when it happens daily. You want to play the angel you're not, go ahead, show what are you made of.

Anyway, this forum is best for singling out opponents. Most of you hunt in packs, like rats.

[rat1]

So attack me for being biased against quadras. I no longer care about socionics, so I won't stick around to argue. If your only defense to being a hypocrite is to also call me a hypocrite, how about we both fuck off along with everyone else in this thread?

[Absurd]

So attack me for being biased against quadras.

Other quadras can be composed of gay people, so technically you're biased against gay people.

I no longer care about socionics, so I won't stick around to argue.

I heard that before. Fair enough.

If your only defense to being a hypocrite is to also call me a hypocrite, how about we both fuck off along with everyone else in this thread?

I'm not defending myself, quite the contrary, I am attacking and we can both do that, besides your religion doesn't hinder you from sleeping with gay people so you shouldn't be offended.

[rat1]

It's the bullshit which offends me, not really the gay jokes. Those only demonstrate the hypocracy.
Last time I checked I was beta, which is the gayest quadra... Alphas maybe when you get them drunk are gayer. But gammas surge forward if you are counting the bisexual females showing off in public, or threesomes; deltas possibly if you consider for closet cases. Hard to say for sure.

[Kim]

Eliza's remark didn't strike me as a joke. Plus Absurd doesn't claim that he is a loving Christian.

[Beautiful sky]

WTH? Looks like something went off in here while I was away; all I have to say is "thank God I was away!"

[Creepy-Snaps]

This thread is long... but.

I do believe in God. I like a lot of Eliza's viewpoints on religion, and agree Christianity is under major attack in the media today, and our culture promotes atheism/Satanic messages.

I used to not believe in God, and viewed those who did as 'crazy'; so I can understand people who are skeptical.

[Creepy-Snaps]

WTH? Looks like something went off in here while I was away; all I have to say is "thank God I was away!"

Religion, politics, duality, and type-me threads typically make for the longest discussions.

[Kim]

This thread is long... but.

I do believe in God. I like a lot of Eliza's viewpoints on religion, and agree Christianity is under major attack in the media today, and our culture promotes atheism/Satanic messages.

[Creepy-]

This thread is long... but.

I do believe in God. I like a lot of Eliza's viewpoints on religion, and agree Christianity is under major attack in the media today, and our culture promotes atheism/Satanic messages.

I used to not believe in God, and viewed those who did as 'crazy'; so I can understand people who are skeptical.

Christianity is "under attack" in media because it is not really any longer needed; it is a vestige of an old order and honestly probably should have died out a long time ago (I firmly believe it would have if the sort of mindset christianity creates in people weren't so... viral, or if it didn't self-perpetuate itself through evangelizing and and indoctrination and encourage throwing out rational thought in favour of rampant dogma).

Believing in such a thing as 'god' is perfectly fine, in my mind... but I fail to see why people still continue to believe in these archaic systems, even if they are quite fun to study.

"If you are not with me then you are against me."

Anything not christian is satanic. That sort of false dichotomy has been around for forever.

[Gilly]

God

There are so many of them...

[Creepy-male]

It's funny people give me a hard time about posting these giant walls of text, yet many of the accusers have jumped into a massive derail that has generated 5 pages of superfluous discussion on something that was sparked about by a single comment.

Yea I love the irony (normally I would say "got to love the irony" -- but I'm pretty sure I'm alone in this one as this observation is likely to annoy some people).

Let's see what else can I say to be a complete dick.

Oh yea accountability -- I love this and positive thinking. I love how everyone accuses people of not being accountable. This is usually because certain people value accountability-- almost always this has its root in negative accountability. Being held accountable for one's "mess ups" versus valuing being accountable for one's successes. People want others to admit their mistakes. What I find interesting though is that in some situations it's just objectively a bad strategy to assume accountability. Say if someone gives you more shit for admitting your mistake than if you kept quiet-- in this situation there is little to know benefit to admit accountability. It only makes sense if there is a perceived lessening in severity of a punishment or some reward. Therefore I think that for one to truly be accountable and value accountability to it's utmost they have to stop complaining about other people's lack of accountability, accept the circumstances, and be accountable for showing others the value in being accountable versus continuing to run from their mistakes. Also the entire notion of sin and confession seem to at be some measure of "accountability" built into the christian paradigm -- although in many cases this is used to emotionally manipulate or guilt people versus teaching them the value of accountability and incorporating it in themselves. Accountability can be ironic, and it's easy for a so called ideal of "accountability" to devolve into simply taking the piss out on someone because they don't do what you want them to do. This process in itself is being dragged down into the shit, and being just as whiny, a truly accountable person would just own the shit around them and fix it as best as they can.

Also positive thinking -- I love how a while back everyone was like "yea positive thinking!" and there was this thread about taking the piss out on negative people. It's ironic because complaining about negative people is well being a negative person yourself, being truly positive would mean learning to get over the negative and transform it to a positive.

Got to love all these appeals to "higher ideals" that simply devolve into the same kind of bitching that inspires them. I get it though, instead of actually thinking in depth about the annoyances one has and finding the ways to fix them -- it's easier to take it out on some poor sap on an internet forum, that probably mostly means well but may be a little naive.

Oh btw in case someone is planning on saying so, I realize I'm being just as petty, but meh, I never claimed to be these things I have mentioned above -- I just feel like grabbing a sledge hammer and breaking down the wall of a stupid ideas whether it makes me a dick or not. Have fun with your little witch hunt.... JERRY, JERRY, JERRY!

how fitting for a thread on stupid people. hahahahahahahahahah

[FDG]

[Absurd]

It's the bullshit which offends me, not really the gay jokes. Those only demonstrate the hypocracy.
Last time I checked I was beta, which is the gayest quadra... Alphas maybe when you get them drunk are gayer. But gammas surge forward if you are counting the bisexual females showing off in public, or threesomes; deltas possibly if you consider for closet cases. Hard to say for sure.

You still do not get anything, crazie rat, or you're just unable to read what I wrote, just like majority people on here so I do not blame you. You have a right to associate with whom you prefer and choose. A god damn frigging right. If you want to marry another race, go ahead and do it - I am all in favor of it and against any law that forbids it. But if you do not, I repeat, do not want to do it, then you have that right as well. Get it? No, I don't think you.

It is the same with folk into blow jobs that talk about sex constantly and if they meet a guy not into it, they try to get him into it, or bother him by asking him why he doesn't like it. Such people do this constantly and maybe their mindless chatter bothers me or bothers people who are trying to work at their job or listen to something else. Their favorite label, if you tell them to shut the fuck up, is to call you a "closed minded bigot." That doesn't work with me and won't. Go bother someone else and keep me out of it.

So when any of yous gays, lesbians and other wonderful people this forum has to offer, tries that on me again, I'm going to roll over you. I'm not gay, so run with the blind.

Oh and one more thing, seeing most of you suffer from anosognosia, do not bother reading me and focus on some pictures people post - it is easier for us both.

Eliza's remark didn't strike me as a joke. Plus Absurd doesn't claim that he is a loving Christian.

I am a loving father of two and pacifist without doing war crimes...

[Absurd]

As for countering religious arguments it is damn easy as long one bases his/her counterarguments on proper facts.

[rat1]

Absurd, I don't know what you're trying to teach me with that wall of text. What's there just seems redundant and obvious, and to me irrelevant.

Eliza's remark didn't strike me as a joke.

It's the same attitude.

Plus Absurd doesn't claim that he is a loving Christian.

This is your real reason. And what an interesting motivation behind it. Knowing the religion convicts you of personal flaws and compels you to change, why not protect yourself with a reaction formation against christians themselves? Jumping at the opportunity to point out the flaw, it somehow negates the whole christian sentiment and thereby makes you less of an imbecile and a liar.
Gilly also does this constantly.

Nothing new here.

[Absurd]

It's the same attitude.

This is your real reason.

Absurd, I don't know what you're trying to teach me with that wall of text. What's there just seems redundant and obvious, and to me irrelevant.

I know you prefer random complaint letter generator ones.

[Bardia]

In this sense, any sort of religious evangelism should be interpreted as aggression and should be interpreted as such.

There's nothing micro about it.

I don't believe it matters very much if people are open minded to everything. If you know the truth, why would you want to change your mind? I think that's foolish. It's more important people are good, kind and decent to each other and tolerant of these disagreements in the face of cooperative needs.

BTW you've committed a act of micro-aggression by saying certain people aren't open minded....

Psychology in action, how cute.

I disagree that any form of evangelism is considered a microagression. Microagressions are more covert and make assumptions about particular groups of people. I don't think engaging people in a conversation about religion is the same, although I can see forced religion fitting into simple aggression because it is covert.

Examples of religious microagressions include something lieke the sole acknowledgement of Christian holidays in work and school. The message is that other religious holidays need to be celebrated on your own time and that they are unimportant.

I'm trying to see how I committed a microinvalidation, but I am not really seeing it so if you care to explain more in detail feel free to. From my perspective, I read a lot of posts about people trying to alter another person's beliefs. First, there wasn't an assumption because the text is right there and second all of the people who posted don't fit into one group.

[Bardia]

I think he said that because religion sucks and it gives people excuses to hide behind-- all of the super religious people I know do not take personal responsibility for their lives or their fuck-ups, nothing is ever *their* fault. it's a shitty way to live in my opinion. If only all of humanity would realize that ultimately we are all playing for the same team-- we are all going to die, our bodies all grow sickly and crumble and.. that's it, then we're dirt. I realize it does give some people "hope" but, I personally don't find it enough to be worth following. Especially when hypocrisy reigns *cough* eliza.

I'm really sorry that the religious people in your life don't take responsibility and are hypocrites. I hope you don't judge all religious people by the crappy ones you meet and do find a genuinely good one to give you a fuller perspective.

[Bardia]

She is the one going around preaching annoying self-martyric stuff, it´s not like she isn´t somehow enticing this behavior.

So you are rationalizing your offensive comment by blaming her. "She deserves it" or "I'm teaching her a lesson."

[Bardia]

Indeed, as is often the case with people who cite microaggression...



I have never been a racist, grew up in an extremely tolerant environment both socially and in my family, have had more black friends than I can count, and yet somehow I was recently accused of racism according to this same idea. I think it's complete crap and can be applied to just about anyone, anywhere, for anything. Sure some people are passive aggressive. But the idea that people do little tiny things unintentionally that are racist or with the intent of segregating is a recipe for a veritable WILDFIRE of confirmation bias, and in reality this idea of microaggression is drastically affected by the interpretation of the "target."

I'm not saying this doesn't happen; I'm saying that it can VERY VERY EASILY be seen to happen everywhere even when it's not, because people are fucking paranoid, and love to give themselves sympathy.

I'll admit that I am a racist and am trying to work on being less racist. I think most people are racist to an extent. Racism has just gone "underground" and is mostly covert. You aren't immune to racism because you have African American friends. It can be hard for us to see racism because we are both white and the system in America works for us because it was created by white people. More CEOs and leaders tend to be white males and they make the rules. I strongly recommend trying to find the documentary "The Color of Fear" and watching it. I know it gave me a lot of insight into how racism goes on and effects people of different backgrounds. It is essentially a discussion about multiculturalism with a group of 8 or so men from different backgrounds. I don't necessarily agree with everything in the documentary but I do with a lot of it.

[Bardia]

The euthanasia bit was sarcasm on my part, but yes I do see a growing body of evidence exists suggesting religiosity as a feature of schizotypy (which can be said exists as a continuum in all humans). For instance:

http://books.google.com/books?id=0bz...zotypy&f=false
http://neuropolitics.org/defaultaug08.asp

Oh, and FWIW I'm also not actually down with fundamentalist atheism (proselytized by the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, etc) since I regard it as being yet another vehicle for religious impetus.

I don't really find it funny when someone jokes that I should be euthanized.

One of my non-Christian professors said that she believed that so many schizophrenics have religious delusions because religion and spirituality make up a very strong and important component for many peoples lives so that importance somehow gets inserted into the delusions.

Your book that you cited gives a lot of percentages of schizophrenics who in some form or another use religion, but I'm not sure that those percentages would be any different with the general non-schizophrenic population. They give no comparisons. It's talk about religion, schizophrenia, and evolution is all a backwards guessing game, not anything factual. In comparing religious experiences and schizophrenic experiences the book sites Hansen & Brodtkorb 2003 which only studied people meditating, hardly a diverse sample of religious experiences. The book even says on page 170 that "However, it is that one does not have to suffer from an organic brain condition to be religious."

As per your neuropolitcs.org link its well known that if people are pressured into have religious experiences that have the same symptomology of seizures they can actually cause themselves to have seizures. The power of the mind over the body is great. It seems like these things are written by people who do not like religion or spirituality and are biased to want to view such things as a mental illness.

My question for you is, what do you think of me?

[FDG]

So you are rationalizing your offensive comment by blaming her. "She deserves it" or "I'm teaching her a lesson."

Nope because I don´t feel guilty for everything offensive I say, thus I don´t need to rationalize it (in this case).

I'll admit that I am a racist and am trying to work on being less racist. I think most people are racist to an extent

You sure you´re not projecting? Or just arbitrarily reducing the "extent" so that anyone could fit?

[Absurd]

Bump.

You sure you´re not projecting? Or just arbitrarily reducing the "extent" so that anyone could fit?

Aquagraph said he is racist which means he is projecting racism on Bardia and Bardia is projecting racism on Aquagraph.

[Bardia]

Nope because I don´t feel guilty for everything offensive I say, thus I don´t need to rationalize it (in this case).

You sure you´re not projecting? Or just arbitrarily reducing the "extent" so that anyone could fit?

You must have felt something because otherwise you would not have responded to my post (in which I did not single you out) to defend your words.

I'm pretty sure any minority group and some white people in America could tell you that racism is alive and well. It just isn't so much in the form of direct hatred anymore. It is more subtle. I can't say anything about racism in Europe so much because I don't know enough. I do know that no one seems to like the gypsies though.

[mu4]

I disagree that any form of evangelism is considered a microagression. Microagressions are more covert and make assumptions about particular groups of people. I don't think engaging people in a conversation about religion is the same, although I can see forced religion fitting into simple aggression because it is covert.

Examples of religious microagressions include something lieke the sole acknowledgement of Christian holidays in work and school. The message is that other religious holidays need to be celebrated on your own time and that they are unimportant.

I'm trying to see how I committed a microinvalidation, but I am not really seeing it so if you care to explain more in detail feel free to. From my perspective, I read a lot of posts about people trying to alter another person's beliefs. First, there wasn't an assumption because the text is right there and second all of the people who posted don't fit into one group.

"It is interesting why some "open minded" people try so hard to convince people to give up their beliefs in favor of the arguer's beliefs. I didn't read through everyone's posts but Kim seemed to be the only open minded person posting that I came across."

What kind of assumptions are you making here about the people in this thread, what kind of implication are you making about these people. You implicate that A: They think they're open minded, B: that they're not open minded, and you do it in a very covert manner.

It's not these individuals fit into a group but rather you've chosen to lump them all together by some commonality(such as participation in this thread), this is the issue of racism and prejudice, is that people are lumped together by a common thing, but that common thing is used as a way of implicating causal judgement of character.

You dissed everyone other than Kim in this thread, by lumping them together as "open minded" individuals, and then dissing them by saying they're not "open minded". It's microvalidation, because you've invalidated the individual thoughts of the people who have participated in this thread and how they think of themselves, and why they have chosen to engage in this conversation with others.

"Characterized by communications that exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person."

You've negated the reasons, the thoughts, feelings and experiential reality of the individuals who have participated in this thread by your act of lumping them together then dismissing ALL of them except one. It's frankly very appalling example of micro-invalidation.

[Absurd]

Looks like some people need to be saved. As for this hang up on skin colour isn't that a Christian thing or something, I mean, during the Cold War Americans referred to Soviet people as demonic looking.

[FDG]

You must have felt something because otherwise you would not have responded to my post (in which I did not single you out) to defend your words.

Sure...I felt that your post was off mark

[Absurd]

Impale him Bardia, impale him as long he is not looking...