I am a DPD Schizophrenic Atheist - will I go to heaven?

bonesboy08 wrote: lol i knew somebody would understand... yet another harsh truth for the catholic church

some one new wrote:
Gasp!

We actually agree on something?!

But thats something the Christian church in general could learn. Not just the catholics.

bonesboy08 wrote: wait I see now that i have read your post again... but it is proven your more scientific when your born and your emotions at that time are geared at self gratification... and if pleasing god by helping others gets you there then fine... atheist’s just took out the middle man in that statement

bonesboy08 wrote: it is human to feel emotion,it is your logic that validates it or not (i am referring to the aforementioned 'emotions well which tool you use to make a decision) you don’t have to be a christian to have emotion driven decisions and you don’t have to be an atheist to think logically after all we are humans.

God isn’t emotion...he is the feeling or 'presecence’that christians feel when their emotions are validated within the moral compass of things

obviously atheists and christians can be a mix of emotion and logic. If your mentally ill you tend to be on one pole or the other (especially schizophrenics) obviously he can be purely logiccal or emotional but i am sure he has some emotion cause he isn’t a psycho.

Atheists (the majority of them) are a mix between logic and emotion but tend to be more logical

Christains (the majority of them)are a mix as well but more emotion based.

The real argument hear is which one is more credible or ethical? and that is up to the individual to decide

see the logos, pathos,and ethos of my statement?

some one new wrote:
Well...its hard to explain but its not about doing it to please God only. But it is an emotional responsibility. Atheists on the other hand don’t have the responsibility to be empathetic, kind and love people they just do. However they are just as empathetic as they are rational (if not more rational). As we move away from religion (as the statistics suggest) we may become permissable of anything as long as it seems reasonable and rational. And if it doesn’t we can seek scientific analyzation if their is an innate programing or a physical condition that causes the problem. Eventually the people who have the problems will try to seek acceptance or at least compassion. Eventually gain it. Hitler for example, supposably suffered from a mental condition which ran in his family (rather than him simply being an evil person). Ivan the terrible had mercury poisening. Do you understand what I’m saying?

silverspirit2001 wrote:

You are assuming being good is not logical, and that evil is the base status of mankind.

Just to clarify - I have suffered many injuries to my mind in the past, and it comes down to logic to determine for me if repeating that pattern is normal behaviour, or logically that such behaviour is aberrant (by evidence of other peoples lives). Logic is deciding what is normal - just like (a christian apologetic argument) what is normative moral behaviour in past times.

I base my decisions on logic OR evidence of other peoples experiences. Logic does not dictate that a god of christian/FSM/muslim/thor/hindu origin is true. If their is no easily available logical model to understand, I go by evidence.

Evidence that I should be a pedophillic torturer, with a strong emotional blackmail ethic who steals, lies, only concerned with self; is thin on the ground.

Maybe the world is lucky, that I reject rather than accept my emotional side, and when I see the bible/koran/avasta, I see my emotional side in the pages. I chose logic, as evidence dictates it as true.

As to “God isn’t emotion...he is the feeling or 'presecence’that christians feel when their emotions are validated within the moral compass of things”, i prayed to god for comfort (my family was not religious, my bible was a gideons given to me at school), reading from a young age (8 years old).

And I knew god existed, as he talked to me, in real words. And everything I suffered was for martyrdom. No indignity or abuse I suffered was unjustified. I could not hate, because for me god was about love. Shame the gideons bible does not include the old testiment.

And my favorite part of the bible? Revalations, where evil was punished.

I have one more thing to add to this rather long post (sorry folks), Is the reporting media coverage of paedophilia. The excessive reporting of the crime seems to normalize this behaviour, where statistics do not to the same degree. I wonder if this can emotionally convince people that this is a natural part of humanity, as evidenced by the koran, Mary’s age at conception, history of the world pre enlightenment, the age of the bride of jerry lewis.

Since the modern perspective of true love does not include these behaviours, but relationships last longer in those times, which is the healthiest for the majority of the people? Or is divorce a sign of continuing freedom from religion or social pressures, and to be encouraged?

Please feel free to critique what I have said, but in a logical, non emotive manor, else I will probably will not fully comprehend your view.

silverspirit2001 wrote:

You are assuming being good is not logical, and that evil is the base status of mankind.

Just to clarify - I have suffered many injuries to my mind in the past, and it comes down to logic to determine for me if repeating that pattern is normal behaviour, or logically that such behaviour is aberrant (by evidence of other peoples lives). Logic is deciding what is normal - just like (a christian apologetic argument) what is normative moral behaviour in past times.

I base my decisions on logic OR evidence of other peoples experiences. Logic does not dictate that a god of christian/FSM/muslim/thor/hindu origin is true. If their is no easily available logical model to understand, I go by evidence.

Evidence that I should be a pedophillic torturer, with a strong emotional blackmail ethic who steals, lies, only concerned with self; is thin on the ground.

Maybe the world is lucky, that I reject rather than accept my emotional side, and when I see the bible/koran/avasta, I see my emotional side in the pages. I chose logic, as evidence dictates it as true.

As to “God isn’t emotion...he is the feeling or 'presecence’that christians feel when their emotions are validated within the moral compass of things”, i prayed to god for comfort (my family was not religious, my bible was a gideons given to me at school), reading from a young age (8 years old).

And I knew god existed, as he talked to me, in real words. And everything I suffered was for martyrdom. No indignity or abuse I suffered was unjustified. I could not hate, because for me god was about love. Shame the gideons bible does not include the old testiment.

And my favorite part of the bible? Revalations, where evil was punished.

I have one more thing to add to this rather long post (sorry folks), Is the reporting media coverage of paedophilia. The excessive reporting of the crime seems to normalize this behaviour, where statistics do not to the same degree. I wonder if this can emotionally convince people that this is a natural part of humanity, as evidenced by the koran, Mary’s age at conception, history of the world pre enlightenment, the age of the bride of jerry lewis.

Since the modern perspective of true love does not include these behaviours, but relationships last longer in those times, which is the healthiest for the majority of the people? Or is divorce a sign of continuing freedom from religion or social pressures, and to be encouraged?

Please feel free to critique what I have said, but in a logical, non emotive manor, else I will probably will not fully comprehend your view.

bonesboy08 wrote:
are u saying atheist’s don’t believe in evil as the cause well your partially right...

Well it is true we don’t beleive in evil the same way u do. we look at it as the product rather than the cause ... if you think about it that is why psychology came into existance... to find the cause to people’s behavior rather than blame it on a posseseion or an evil nature.

what you don’t understand is why we do this. scientists don’t anylyze a psycho’s life to bring them compassion,though often they will recieve some, we still beleive their actions are wrong and that they should be justly punished but they are still human.

let me give you an example my aunt is schizophrenic and one day she stole a radio from best buy and when we confronted her about it, at first she blamed it on her illness, but eventually
she came around and paid the fine for the radio. Now you see, stealing the radio could have been part of her on going delusion of communist spies listening to her. Put that aside though and she realized she was wrong for stealing and for giving into her delusions. she was still punished but it was made aware she is not a monster

you see waht i am getting at?

It is like you are saying our beliefs are too liberal but really they are within reason. what makes them liberal is where we apply open thought and that is what makes us compassionate

It is the fear of change, acceptance,tolerance and thing that are new that convervative politics and religion is failing. You fail to understand it is not christian to be compassionate ...it is human

On issues we have yet to solve we don’t immediately give credit to a deity or demon like you do but we study it and find a reason for it to be

some one new wrote:
You say its within reason but think about it, anything can seriously be justified through reason and logic.
James D. Watson, an Atheist, believes through his research that African Americans were genetically inferior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson
These ideas during his time could have legitimized the ideas of racism etc. from a scientific perspective. Nowadays we changed our beliefs on that because we know otherwise. And now we know that people are all equal. But I digress.
“Open thinkers” (Atheists) found ways to legitimize the social norms of Society (you can’t blame it all on religion )Slaves suffering from a sickness that “made them want to be free”.

Now were moving in a different direction, the new age mind set of all things are permissable as long as it doesn’t harm anyone, but the threshold is going higher if you understand what I mean.

some one new wrote:

bonesboy said,"...(still does, and yes i have read the bible ... it condones slavery as well as treating women as doormats but i digress)..."


"...cause their bible said they were inferior (still does, and yes i have read the bible..."

some one new wrote: “cause their bible said they were inferior (still does, and yes i have read the bible "

Also show me where it specifically says blacks are inferior (not where slavery is condoned that goes without saying)

bonesboy08 wrote: what i was reffering to is how the christains in the south used this passage as an excuse to enslave a people and naturally assumed it meant the blacks and that God thought it was perfectly moral to do so

bonesboy08 wrote:
I wasn’t referring to the blacks as the slaves but slaves in general... either way nobody should take that book seriously except for maybe the gospels and it terrible that any holy book condone slavery of anybody ... don’t you think?

John 13
1[NOW] BEFORE the Passover Feast began, Jesus knew (was fully aware) that the time had come for Him to leave this world and return to the Father. And as He had loved those who were His own in the world, He loved them to the last and [a]to the highest degree.
2So [it was] during supper, Satan having already put the thought of betraying Jesus in the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son,

3[That] Jesus, knowing (fully aware) that the Father had put everything into His hands, and that He had come from God and was [now] returning to God,

4Got up from supper, took off His garments, and taking a [servant’s] towel, He fastened it around His waist.

5Then He poured water into the washbasin and began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the [servant’s] towel with which He was girded.

6When He came to Simon Peter, [Peter] said to Him, Lord, are my feet to be washed by You? [Is it for You to wash my feet?]

7Jesus said to him, You do not understand now what I am doing, but you will understand later on.

8Peter said to Him, You shall never wash my feet! Jesus answered him, Unless I wash you, you have no part with ([b]in) Me [you have no share in companionship with Me].

9Simon Peter said to Him, Lord, [wash] not only my feet, but my hands and my head too!

10Jesus said to him, Anyone who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is clean all over. And you [My disciples] are clean, but not all of you.

11For He knew who was going to betray Him; that was the reason He said, Not all of you are clean.

12So when He had finished washing their feet and had put on His garments and had sat down again, He said to them, Do you understand what I have done to you?

13You call Me the Teacher (Master) and the Lord, and you are right in doing so, for that is what I am.

14If I then, your Lord and Teacher (Master), have washed your feet, you ought [it is your duty, you are under obligation, you owe it] to wash one another’s feet.

15For I have given you this as an example, so that you should do [in your turn] what I have done to you.

16I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, A servant is not greater than his master, and no one who is sent is superior to the one who sent him.

17If you know these things, blessed and happy and [c]to be envied are you if you practice them [if you act accordingly and really do them].

some one new wrote: ”(still does, and yes i have read the bible ... it condones slavery as well as treating women as doormats but i digress)"


Show me the entire scripture not just that verse

Ephesians 5

22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.