Proof of existence of god.

[IATIA]

That will depend on what kind of mushrooms he has been munching on.

Manna in the bible appears to be mushrooms. Hallucinogenic 'shrooms.

Manna

[AthiestAtheist]

If this matters, the video is valid Psychology. I have a bs degree in Psychology. In defense of the video maker it is difficult to explain the psychological concept in a short period of time.

---

If it matters, psychology is largely bs. Not every psychologist knows a damn thing what the hell they're talking about. It's a valid psychological concept that rejection makes people act in those ways, but to actually say people feel rejected would require him to be psychic.

---

No we want you to think for yourselves.

Fun fact: people who think for themselves more often than average become atheists.

---

Often enough from a theist perspective an attack on our beliefs starts with "those stupid/irrational/ignorant/deluded/crazy Christians..." So hopefully you can see where it would be taken as a personal attack.

No, a lot of religious people will take everything as a personal attack. If an atheist says "There is not enough evidence to validate a belief in God", they will take it as a personal attack. So no, I don't know why things like that should be taken as a personal attack, because they aren't. People take things too personally when they are irrational.

[Ziploc Surprise]

"If it matters, psychology is largely bs. Not every psychologist knows a damn thing what the hell they're talking about. It's a valid psychological concept that rejection makes people act in those ways, but to actually say people feel rejected would require him to be psychic."

Edit to the post below: Read the post below through the lens of someone who is slightly autistic, very picky about precise definitions, and is very good at tests and measurements. If you don't read this through this lens I may sound like an asshole, which believe me, was not intended (after all being an asshole is inefficient in the pursuit of truth in any debate situation).

According to the video "You're relationship with god is actually a profound dynamic relationship with the self." According to an online dictionary psychosis is " any form of severe mental disorder in which the individual's contact with reality becomes highly distorted " and supported by wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis . If you were to combine these things you could say that all believers in god are psychotic (including me, for about 30 years) .

This would mean that 74% of the population of the state of Texas, for example, are psychotic http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/State-...igion.aspx (mind you the question in the poll in the link asked "If religion was an important part of your daily life. I am equating this with belief in a god or god. they aren't exactly the same thing but I say that they are close enough for argument's sake in this post) . Therefore if belief in a god or gods are a form of psychosis then this means that 74% of Texans are crazy, most Americans are crazy, and the Bible belt is a loony bin. Globally speaking the numbers might show that this sort of lunacy is not just confined to the U.S.

What I'm trying to say is that statistically speaking lunacy as described above is normal in the us and in many other countries. In some countries the citizens have chosen not to be psychotic (per my definition listed above) in other countries this form of psychosis was discouraged or forced out of individuals (and depending on their age, their parents/grandparents).

So what am I trying to say by all this? I'm trying to say that by the definition listed above, belief in god is a form of psychosis, but one that is statistically normal in many countries. You tried to disprove the theory in the video by implying that an abnormal situation (psychosis) would have to occur in order for the theory in the video to be valid. I'm saying that this "abnormal situation" (psychosis) is statistically normal in most countries. In other words it not only occurs but it also occurs in great number in many places. Like a mass psychosis.

Is it healthy? I'd think the general consensus on this forum would be no. is it a maladaptive behavior? I'd think the general consensus on this forum would be yes. I'd also say that there is sufficient evidence outside this forum to support these statements. Obviously there are ways to bring people to reality It's not the point of my post to go into these methods and I believe that they are explained elsewhere.

As for psychology itself, psychology is the last of the sciences to come out of mysticism. Technically you can truthfully say that it isn't a real science because the scientific method is difficult to apply in the field of psychology. Psychology is getting better but in my opinion it is still seeped in bs (I have always admitted this). In defense of Psychology I point out that it's better to have explanations for phenomena that have attempted to use the scientific method rather than those that have not used the scientific method at all . Psychology is what we have right now. Other fields of science do help to explain things but they can not explain everything. Now I ask you which would you prefer? A very good attempt at examining phenomena via the scientific method or no attempt at all?

[AthiestAtheist]

Proof of existence of God:

End.