Praise JESUS the HOLY GHOST has DESCENDED upon this BROTHER and the HOLY CONGREGATION speaks in the TONGUE of ANGELS! PRAISE GAWD ALMIGHTY! THANK-YA-JESUS!!!
Is it any wonder they call it being “drunk with the holy spirit”?
If there is a god, I bet he has a good time laughing at these people.
4,000 subscribers. 10,000 daily views.
John M: I think the biggest issue we are seeing is that this kind of money is available to pastors in the first... Ed Young’s Lavish Lifestyle
Siberia: I kind of don’t give a rat’s ass about propagating my genes. I’d much rather have this particular iteration of my... Don’t Grow Old
Ty: If that was a possible benefit of being above the line, then yes. I’m extraordinarily capable of success when I... Don’t Grow Old Ty: I would happily trade away free reproduction in exchange for a much longer life span. I kind of don’t give a... Don’t Grow Old
K: Couldn’t agree more – especially as I’ve studied the Bible on the role of women and... The Tragic Trap of Christian Marriage K: I think that the virgin birth story was part of the anti-sex anti-personal-freedom propaganda of the... Why I Deny the Virgin Birth of Jesus
Erp: Interesting. Many years ago I helped my aunt sort out some of her late mother-in-law’s... The Most Blasphemous Book Ever Written
Peter Cross: The Age of Reason is sometimes published and sold without Part 3: Examination of the... The Most Blasphemous Book Ever Written
|
|
|
118 Comments
Wow I wish I was a member of one of these churches when I was a christian, I would have become and atheist at age 5…
I was from ages 11-16…. it’s the most disgusting pile of crap I have ever seen. in the words of dawkins “if the only reason to accept religion is that it makes people feel better then why don’t they all just take drugs?”
Certainly one could argue they are doing that in this video.
Drugs are for those who can’t handle reality. Religion is for those who can’t handle drugs!
Pass the bong, plz.
The redneckz! It BURNZ!
Are these people PROUD of this?! Seriously? Wow.
Yeah they are proud of it for the most part. I have family that belongs to a church that does similar stuff and most seem to think it is real and important. What is fun is to go to one of these sermons and you can find the non-believers during this part of it. They will have this embarrassed look as this is happening.
You ever notice how religious videos always have comments pending approval, so you only see ones in their view, but skeptic/atheists videos always let people post whatever they want? There’s a moral here somewhere.
WOW, how blind can one be to their stupidity……………………….
There all crazy on one level or another.
Wow, from the sounds they were making we can all talk in tongues as well…..
Just loosen your lips and run your finger in a superior/inferior movement across your lips. There, that sounds about right.
crickey.
been to one of these as a teenager. The preacher got the crowd all wound up and in a frenzy, and then they all lined up so he could yell something at them and then whack them in the head with a bible……
you’d lie on the ground babbling too if you just suffered a concussion
Dr. Saplosky had a video out about the importance of ritual in a religious environment. Its at RichardDawkins.net.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3931,Sapolsky-on-Religion,Robert-Sapolsky
A new dimension to bible thumping.
What makes people participate in these things? Are they desperate? Lonely? Bored? Emotionally needy?
I don’t think they’re disingenuous and I don’t think they’re evil. I don’t think they’re under the spell of the Holy Spirit, but of mass hysteria. I feel bad for them and I wish they could find real substantial healing of the whole person.
Is there something to offer them beyond ridicule?
So you have no objection to ridiculing a faith that is not your own, right?
Where did that question come from?
I think Aor is pointing out that when someone objects to not showing respect/not ridiculing/taking the piss etc. out of a religion they seem to generally mean their own religion or even just what they personally respect of their own or other’s relgions.
Whether this appiles to you, I don’t know.
“Is there something to offer them besides ridicule” implies that ridicule is your reaction to certain religious beliefs that are not your own. That in itself is no problem.. I ridicule religious beliefs all the time. But I’m an atheist.. by ridiculing all religions I am being consistent and fair. No special treatment, no hypocrisy.. no belief is immune to that ridicule. But the moment a believer says that certain other beliefs, those of a different religion or a different sect of their own religion, are worthy of ridicule… then they lose the right to complain if someone else thinks their beliefs are ridiculous. I just want you to take a firm position on whether ridiculing the beliefs of other religions is acceptable to you. That way if your beliefs get ridiculed you will already have an opinion ‘on file’… and you won’t have the right to complain about people ridiculing your beliefs without being a hypocrite.
Seems simple, no? That is one of the many advantages to not believing in ridiculous things. You never have to hold back from ridiculing others who believe in ridiculous things for fear they will return the favor.
Which in turn implies that ridiculing the position of atheism is also a-OK.
Unless of course you believe that your position is inherently superior to the others and not deserving of ridicule. That would be very original.
Feel free. I have no problems with that at all.
Virtually any position on anything can be ridiculed. Ask any comedian. The ridicule may or may not be deserved, depending on ones perspective. The percieved superiority of one over the over may not be inherent, in some general sense, but may be based upon a particular set of values. If at the top of your list of values is rationality then, by that yardstick, some positions (those based upon rationality) can be said to be superior to those that are not.
I disagree with nothing that you wrote. However, my question was not whether it could be ridiculed, but whether it should be ridiculed.
@elemenope
I can’t seem to read your comment the way you want it to be interpreted. I think you just wanted a way to lash out at someone you had negative interactions with in the past, and you made an obvious attempt to get me to take a hypocritical position.. and you failed. Rather than just let it go at that, you now have to suggest that you actually meant something slightly different. Wouldn’t it be easier to just admit that you have no problem with ridicule provided there is no hypocrisy involved? The way you phrased your comment certainly implied that the hypocrisy was what you would take issue with, and that means we would completely agree, which means you would have no reason to make your comment at all.
Interesting, isn’t it?
This is OT but hey, it’s Sunday. At one point my son was going through some problems and was in a program to help him sort things out. As a result, I was at a parent’s workshop where we were divided into small groups to share with one another our 5 most important values. The number one value of the lady sitting next to me was the ability to lie effectively. She was Gypsy. :)
Wouldn’t it be easier to just admit that you have no problem with ridicule provided there is no hypocrisy involved?
I would not admit to believing something I do not in fact believe. Ridicule is generally ineffective (your protestations about peer pressure notwithstanding), but more to the point, it coarsens the dialogue to the point where people can no longer have more nuanced conversations and drives away people who might otherwise want to contribute. You, by the way, are an absolute master at this.
Hypocrisy only makes it less tolerable. I’m glad you aren’t a hypocrite.
So everyone has the right to find anything they want to ridiculous, but shouldn’t mention it for fear of hurting someone’s feelings. Good to hear.. and ridiculous.
Just because “ridicule” and “ridiculous” have the same root word, they have different inflections of meaning in common usage.
ridicule
–noun
speech or action intended to cause contemptuous laughter at a person or thing; derision.
–verb (used with object)
to deride; make fun of.
ridiculous, on the other hand
–adj.
absurd; preposterous; silly
There are, obviously, ways to point out that something is absurd or preposterous without making fun or heaping derision on the person saying it.
But by all means, if you find something ridiculous, you can of course heap scorn on it, make merciless fun, and say nothing constructive. You have the absolute right to do that. I will, of course, criticize you for it.
By saying nothing constructive, do you mean your first comment to me here, the one where you made your unsubtle attempt to get me to take a hypocritical position? The one that failed? Was there some hidden scorn in your phrase ‘that would be very original’? Was it intended to.. cause contemptuous laughter? Was it perhaps… an attempt at mockery? Derision? Both of which are words you will find in the definition of “ridicule”, by the way. Was it just a way to try to sneak in an insult without actually using one?
You fail to live up to the standards you espouse. Feel free to criticize me for catching you out like this, because I find you ridiculous. You should have just left the conversation when Nomad took you apart… or been smart enough not to enter it in the first place… seeing as you had nothing constructive to say, right?
Danger. Black hole.
Aor —
We’ve been over this before, too. When interacting with someone you don’t know, the benefit of the doubt is called for. After you know them, having had interacted with them several times, reasonable expectations can be formed. For example, I expect, from reading your past comments and from interacting with you in the past, that you are unnecessarily confrontational, intentionally provocative, and generally rude, and additionally have a tendency to twist people’s words into the least charitable interpretation possible. You, I’m sure, also have formed expectations about me (know-it-all, moralizing, arrogant ass wouldn’t be far from the mark, I’d guess).
The problem is, you’re nasty to everyone, immediately, and that’s the difference. Your nastiness isn’t tempered in the slightest by an initial period of reasonable refrain from judgment. You’re all attack, all the time. I don’t do that, I modulate my responses depending on situation, and who I’m talking to; the equivalence you draw between us in order to call me a hypocrite is downright silly.
And the word you were looking for was ’sarcasm’. Often called the lowest form of irony. The irony was to highlight that you were needling Clery Guy into admitting that he would be offended if his own beliefs were treated with ridicule, and yet you don’t take criticism of any sort very well, polite or otherwise. I was not seeking to have a polite *conversation* with you because usually there is nothing of the sort to be had with you. Nomad, on the other hand, was quite polite, and I agreed with much of what he wrote, and said as much.
@elemenope
Gee, sarcasm.. interesting. Know any good definitions of that word? Here’s the one from wikipedia:
See that word there, the one spelled “ridicule?” Yeah, so do I. Or do you spell it F-A-I-L?
You come talking (dare I say preaching?) about ridicule, and open the conversation with sarcasm.. an attempt to ridicule. That is something you ought to watch out for, because it makes you look like a liar. You ought to watch out for that.
Now, since you have admitted that you were trying to be sarcastic, and ridicule is a synonym of sarcasm, you have admitted to making an attempt to use ridicule. You also claim that you would criticize me for it.. so lets hear you criticize yourself, or correct yourself.
PS. I am nasty to liars, I am nasty to hypocrites. I don’t seem to be nasty to people who speak truthfully, do I? If you think you can back up those claims, do so. Seriously, if you are correct then it shouldn’t be too hard.. right? Back it up, or back away from it. RIght now, with your pattern of self serving lies, you don’t have much credibility. That is your own fault, man. Stop being a hypocrite and I will stop criticizing you for being a hypocrite.
rodney is right; this conversation is a black hole of stupid.
First off, you need help with the English, especially the word “synonym”. Sarcasm can be *used* to ridicule, it does not mean that sarcasm is a *synonym* for ridicule. Sarcasm can also be used for humor, situational irony, dramatic intent, litotes, juxtaposition, and signposting (and much more). Of course, your clip from the very beginning of a wiki article is sure to capture all the nuances of the term. (See, that was sarcasm again, to indicate that it is likely the method you employed does not pick up the nuances of the term. That was sarcasm used juxtapositionally, intended to compare your statement with consensual reality.)
A flexible little tool of language, it is. Much like metaphors, though if I recall correctly, you think those are dumb too. I was using it, as I said before, to highlight a situational irony: you don’t take criticism at all well, and yet you are asking someone if it would be alright if you or someone else were to ridicule their beliefs.
But let’s say that my intent was to ridicule, just for fun. Read my last paragraph again. If you can’t figure out why ridicule is in some case OK (as in, dealing with the same un-constructive guy you’ve dealt with before dozens of times before who is, yet again, being a bullying ass to someone he just barely met), and in some case not OK (namely, being a bullying ass to someone you just barely met), then there’s no hope for you. Even under the least charitable interpretation, and assuming I’m a liar to top it off, what I’m doing is still far different from what I’m criticizing you for doing.
can spot the black hole a mile away. a few smarties try to one up each other. never ending stupidity. have fun….
Anyone got any popcorn?
@elemenope
Actually the dictionary says that ridicule is a synonym for sarcasm. Do you want to look that up on your own, or do you want me to do it and give you the link? Here goes:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm
Now, that completly destroys your first paragraph. You really should have just looked up the word before spouting off again, like some kind of.. arrogant know-it-all? When you are wrong, you need to learn to admit it. The dictionary says you are wrong, and my guess is you will pretend otherwise.. or avoid acknowledging it, like you do so often. This, from a person who claims I can’t take criticism.
Hey, wait.. didn’t I ask you to back up your claims? If you want to be taken seriously, you are going to have to cite your sources. Since you claim I’m nasty to everyone immediately that should be no problem for you, right? Should take just a few seconds. Go ahead and do it right now. Remember that since you said I’m nasty to everyone I only need to find one person I haven’t been nasty to and your little lie gets destroyed. I’m challenging you to back it up. Of course you could always admit you overstated things and correct yourself, but once you get in these conversations you get all rabid and lose the ability to admit any errors on your part.
You have gone on and on with personal attacks. Do you feel that is ‘coarsening the conversation’.. something you claim to have an issue with? Lets see you concede a few points, live up to this high-minded moral position you claim to believe in. Put your money where your mouth is. You do not live up to the standards you expect others to live up to. Will you ever admit it? Not likely. You have a bad record of not conceding a point when it is made. Once you get in an argument with me and I make a clear point, you go all defensive and wind up taking conflicting positions. That says something about you. It says you would rather lie than lose an argument.
Learn from your mistakes.
(Sigh.)
The on-line dictionary you reference also lists ‘disease’ and ‘complaint’ as synonyms. Also ‘bless’ and ‘magnify’. Also ‘intelligence’ and ‘penetration’. Apparently they believe in the shotgun approach to synonymy. “I found a site on-line that says you are wrong” is pretty weak, only more so when the thing you are appealing to it for it is so weak at providing. But, even if we take the dictionary at face-value, it did prominently mention “irony” as one of the other definitions of the word. If you then take a short trip to the entry for “irony”, the connection to sarcasm and the function that sarcasm plays in the execution of irony becomes clear.
Nonetheless, I will concede that while sarcasm as a technical part of language is concerned mostly with irony (and its instrumentality thereto), as the word is used in everyday parlance it has some of the undercurrents you subscribe to it. So while I repeatedly and strenuously pointed out I was using it in the notion of juxtapositional irony, if you believe me to be a liar and tend to read things automatically in the worst possible light then I can’t fault you for also believing that when I said that I meant the definition you refer to, and not the one I described.
Likewise, while you call me a “liar” for pointing out that you are generally disagreeable, I (probably) slightly overemphasized the frequency of that unfortunate tendency. I say probably only because I cannot recall a set of comments in which you were at all pleasant, but will concede that my memory isn’t even close to perfect, I haven’t read everything you’ve ever written, nor have much desire to, and so cannot say anything with certainty about that content which I have either forgotten or never read. All I have is a decent data set and some induction. While most readers of the English language would read my comment and understand my meaning (you tend to be a jerk on this site, in a frequency that approaches always) and glide past the rhetorical overstatement, you dwell on it. And so, sure, I will concede it is probably a technical overstatement. Does this make me a liar? Only for absurd values of ‘liar’.
As far as coarsening the conversation goes, this is the only part where I will grant you something substantial. I did make a major mistake, from which I do continually fail to learn. I engaged in a conversation with you. I don’t have this problem with anyone else, and have not met anyone else on this site who provokes in me such pure annoyance. Heck, even John C, who often doesn’t make much sense, at least doesn’t jerk people around. I should have known from past interaction that nothing fruitful could arise, but I was overcome by the (poor) instinct to respond to one of your comments. I did towards the end respond somewhat intemperately. For that I do apologize. This exchange did test the limits of my patience and tolerance and found them a bit wanting, so if you would like to do a little victory dance for teasing some hypocrisy out of me then be my guest.
I have nobody to blame but myself.
Hooray, you just displayed the ability to take criticism. You even conceded some points. This is an improvement. You still equivocate and pretend that the only way you ‘coarsened the conversation’ was by engaging in it at all, which is an outrageously self serving lie…. but hey, at least you showed some progress.
Does this mean you won’t preach these high minded self righteous moral codes that you don’t live up to?
If it’s Aor against the world, Aor will win (in his/her own mind, at least).
You are a broken record, Aor. You use the same tired arguments with every religious person who posts. You make them into strawmen, then huff and puff and blow them down. You are a hostile, antogonistic commenter, and everyone acknowledges that. You jump at the chance to hurl insults, you rush to judgment about people based on merely one or two comments, you refuse to take people at their word, you don’t care about having a conversation (that entails learning from and teaching others) because all you care about is being right, and you fail to see that you yourself embody nearly everything that you accuse others of being, especially a hypocrite.
I could go so far as to acknowledge that your position was a valid though less likely one on the basis of the first post. However, given that the guy came back and said “I do not endorse ridiculing these people”, I think your position was severely weakened. Even though he did not specifically clarify his first comment and chose to not participate thereafter, that supports the ‘non-hypocritical’ interpretation more strongly than reading possible intentions into actions supports the ‘hypocritical’ interpretation. After all, he said it, I didn’t have to infer it, but you are inferring.
Good grief, this is starting to sound like textual analysis. Or possibly debating club. Is there an English teacher in the house?
@Aor. This is supposed to be a place where we have a dialogue, which cannot take place in an atomsphere of ridicule and derision. You can look back on anything I’ve written anywhere on this blog, and although I have a different perspective than the atheist, you will not find my having made fun of anyone. I’ve actually made a friend from this blog.
You have used a lot of wordage to justify your words of hostile ridicule. Are you making things better or worse by doing so? Are you changing anyone’s mind? Are you encouraging thoughtful consideration?
If their beliefs are worthy of ridicule, then you cannot ever claim that your beliefs should be beyond ridicule. That would be hypocritical, plain and simple. You brought up the fact that you had nothing to offer them other than ridicule, so don’t blame me for the fact that you find them to be ridiculous. It is the hypocrisy that bothers me. I asked you to take a firm position on that because I sensed that you would be troubled by ridicule of your beliefs. What is so hard about that? Are you a hypocrite, or not? If you choose to answer this, you really should make an effort to answer this question.. it is key. If you just wiggle and squirm and avoid taking a firm position then that speaks volumes. Just be honest about it, that shouldn’t be hard. You have already taken the position that you have the right to find the beliefs of others ridiculous, so its time to admit that other people have the right to find your beliefs ridiculous…. unless of course you are special, right?
You took a position publicly and I am challenging you on it. You feel that beliefs of certain other religions are deserving of ridicule, so in order to not be a hypocrite you must accept that those who believe other things will have the right to think that your beliefs are ridiculous. You simply cannot have it both ways.
PS. Ridicule can and does change people’s minds and behaviors. Look up peer pressure.
Show me the exact quote that you are referring to.
In any case, let me say clearly, I do not think it is right for me (or you) to ridicule others because their beliefs are different from mine. I do think it’s appropriate to express differences of opinion respectfully.
“Is there something to offer them beyond ridicule?”
@clergy guy
So since you find the people in this video worthy only of ridicule, you are in a hypocritical position. All you need to do to get out of it is either say that they should not be ridiculed (that is, change your position) or say that it is fine to ridicule them and fine for them to ridicule you. Pick one, so you can be consistent.
My guess is that your real opinion is what you expressed first.. that these people are worthy (only) of ridicule. I’ll give you a pass on the “only” as an exaggeration. When confronted over that you find yourself in a tough position… speak truthfully and allow others ridicule your beliefs, or deny others the right to ridicule your beliefs for the low low price of not expressing your actual opinion.
If that statement suggests to anyone that I reserve the right to ridicule someone who does not share my beliefs, please allow me to clarify that I do not feel that way.
I’m done with this subject. Everyone have a good day.
@Clergy Guy
So.. what does it mean then? I think I can guess, and you won’t like my guess.
I think you do find them to be ridiculous, and will continue to find them ridiculous, but now that you have been challenged on it you are trapped by your hypocrisy.. you want to have the right to find their beliefs to be ridiculous and yet deny others the right to find your beliefs to be ridiculous. Rather than admit this obvious hypocrisy, you have to take a position you don’t actually agree with in order to save face. Since you cannot respond honestly and openly, you have to squirm around and then abandon the conversation rather than learn from your mistakes.
Aor,
Though I don’t wish to get into the middle of your little fight here, I have to say that our position is disingenuous at best. It is rather obvious that you are intentionally misinterpreting Clergy guy’s words. By asking the question, “Is there something to offer them beyond ridicule?’ it is clear that he means, ” Should we not be offering something constructive rather than simply ridiculing these people?” Why be obtuse about it unless you are gunning for a fight. Clergy guy has the right idea about this. Though I do not hold to any religious beliefs, offering only derision toward those who do appears closed-minded and a bit juvenile.
P.S. Peer pressure through ridicule, though effective on the young and those with low self-efficacy, should not be looked upon as a positive manner in which to change the minds of others.
Whats obvious to me, Clergyguy is intentionally trying to obfuscate the point.
“I do not think it is right for me (or you) to ridicule others because their beliefs are different from mine.”
As if being different was the real reason for ridicule.
@idea1013
Naturally I disagree with you. In fact I can’t figure out just how you get your interpretation, because it is quite a stretch. If Clergy Guy meant what you think he meant.. why didn’t he just say so? Since he didn’t, I have to assume that you are wrong.
@Sunny Day
“Whats obvious to me, Clergyguy is intentionally trying to obfuscate the point.”
Maybe, or maybe not. I’ve not read that many of Clergyguy’s post so don’t know the likelihood of that being true or not, could just be a mis-understanding. Generally when people say we should respect people beliefs it really means within reason and it can also mean that if you disagree then say so but in a reasonable manner. Then again it can also mean (and this seems more prevalent among believers) that there beliefs may not be criticised and should take precedence over other beliefs, including different religions.
@Aor,
I read the statement in the same way that idea1013 did, and it took reading several comments to get from there to how you could possibly have interpreted it the way you did. Read in that light, Clergyguy is clearly not obfuscating – he just couldn’t work out how you twisted what he said and presumably thought was clear enough (although of course I can’t speak for him, I’m just making a supposition). Which gets back to Elemenope’s comments about giving the benefit of the doubt when on a forum of people that you don’t know. Maybe, just maybe, you have launched in, all guns blazing, over something you misinterpreted.
@Mogg
I still have to ask.. if I misinterpreted his words, why didn’t he just say so? Since he won’t make that claim, seeing others make it on his behalf is unconvincing.
@ Aor
Fair ’nuff – although I think the fact that clergyguy said “where did that question come from?” is at least a decent hint that you may have misunderstood what he meant. Like I said, I can’t speak for him. I was just attempting to point out that what he said could and indeed was read in a different way to how you have read it.
For the record, pointing out that the Bible specifically discourages that kind of behaviour, and then a suggestion that I research the effects of group hysteria was more effective than ridicule as an antidote.
I’m now quite interested – why do you consider that the ridiculous inherently needs to be met with ridicule? Are you attempting to get the people you engage to change their minds? Or are you intending to pick and win fights? (I am not meaning to take a dig at you here, some people like to fight). I did a bit of a look around on the Psychinfo database on the topics of peer pressure and ridicule, and the (surprisingly little) research seems to suggest that ridicule, while effective at making observers conform (because they don’t want to become the next target), usually has negative effects for the target and can lead to situational escalation – a fight, in other words. In other words, if you want to pick fights or cause people to get angry and defensive you’re going about it the right way, but if you’re wanting people who you find ridiculous or hypocritical or whatever to change their ways you may want to consider adding a few other tools to your discussion toolkit. Of course, you may not care, which is fine so long as Daniel doesn’t mind, it being his blog and all.
I’m supposed to be designing a study on an aspect of social psychology – maybe this could be a good topic.
I can’t recall saying that the ridiculous inherently needs to be met with ridicule. I do remember saying that it is hypocritical to ridicule other religions and not be willing to accept ridicule of your own religion. I don’t find using the bible to make points to theists to be very effective. The bible contradicts itself on so many points that it is virtually useless as a guide. I wouldn’t use greek myths to convince people that putting a coin under the tongues of the dead so they can pay the ferryman to cross the river Styx is stupid. I might use ridicule because those beliefs are patently ridiculous and no use of logic is likely be effective. Few would doubt that, because the religion is dead. Just because a religion still has a significant number of followers does not give it the right to ask for special treatment in those situations. All religions get treated the same, or someone somewhere is being a hypocrite.. and I try not to be that person.
Was pointing out the bible discourages that behavior more effective? Who pointed it out, where, when, and what was the effect? I don’t see any of that.
Why should an atheist use the bible (frequently contradictory and easily open to varied interpretations) when pointing out an obvious hypocrisy would make the key point regardless of the religion of the people reading the comment? It seems to me that I got a result that may have made a change in Clergy Guy’s approach.. if he wants to be free from ridicule of his religious beliefs he must refrain from ridiculing the religious beliefs of others. I can’t think of a bible quote that would accomplish that… can you? In fact I think a little reading of the bible might find quotes that would indicate a complete lack of respect for the beliefs of other religions.
Many believers have a holier-than-thou attitude. They criticize other religions and get annoyed when people criticize theirs.. and act innocent when confronted about it. I’ve seen it many many times. Such people need to see that that is a hypocritical position, and the bible (or any other holy book) is not a good source for such situations. Calm and reasoned and polite approaches may work on some people some of the time, but not on all people all of the time. There are always situations and individuals for which those approaches are ineffective and other approaches, more blunt and in-your-face methods, can have significant results. You can be calm and polite if you wish, but there is no requirement for all people to take that approach. Some people who are immune to reason may not be immune to shame, and making a person feel shame is a great way to get them to change their behavior.
I can’t recall ridiculing Clergy Guy by the way. Did I? He seems to accuse me of it.. but I don’t see it. If you see it, please point it out to me. I simply challenged him on his words, and pointed out the inherent hypocrisy in that position. Others have different interpretations of his meaning, but his inability (or reluctance) to explain what he really meant doesn’t support that idea at all. This does not suggest a person who is speaking openly and honestly. Often people who take those hypocritical positions use the ‘oh why can’t you be nicer when you point out how wrong I am’… this is usually an attempt to shift the blame to the person pointing out the flaw rather than admitting they made a mistake and correcting themselves. Rather than accept they made a mistake, they get defensive and look for ways to attack the messenger.. frequently this means criticism of the way they were corrected.
@ Aor
Oh. Clearly my attempt at tags didn’t work! All my quotes have disappeared, but I hope you get the gist.
It is astonishingly easy to treat all religions and supernatural belief systems equally. I have the same reaction and use the same approaches on the people who claim to have seen mermaids off the coast of Israel or have captured Bigfoot or seen the image of LaToya Jackson appear in their egg white omelette. Use of reason and rational thought may work on some, but not all. Niceness has its uses.. some of them negative (during the suffrage movement it was said that nice girls don’t want the vote!). Use of ridicule can and does have an effect in some situations. I don’t need to hold back from offending them, because being offended does not make someone special. Some people may be offended at those who don’t believe in astrology.. and I will not be held back from criticizing or ridiculing those people and their beliefs just because it might hurt their feelings. We cannot live our lives based on what may or may not offend others or hurt their feelings because someone out there is offended by anything you can think of. Use the phrase ’sacred cow’ and you have offended Hindu’s. Make a joke about reincarnation and you are in effect ridiculing those who actually believe in it. I don’t like those kinds of special treatment.. all supernatural beliefs and whacked out claims get challenged, politely or not. We all do and say things in our daily lives that would be regarded as ridicule of someone elses beliefs. I won’t let my actions be limited by those people who have the thinnest skins and believe the wackiest things. Nor should anyone else.
@Aor
I’m not arguing that you should tippy-toe around sacred cows, only that you should be a little more careful to identify the sacred cow before you gun for it.
I think in this case you started shooting at something that was ambiguous enough that identification wasn’t certain, and there were good reasons why others saw a pitchfork casting a shadow on the wall, not a cow.
There are also people who interpreted it the way I did. What does any of that prove? The man was unable or unwilling to present an alternative interpretation. That speaks volumes. Others doing so on his behalf says next to nothing.
It comes down, I think, to you making a judgement call that my judgement call was wrong. Something about that makes me snicker a little… no offense.
@ Aor
I’m not offended. I just think that as the picker of the argument, it is incumbent upon you to make sure you know what you’re shooting at before you open fire, particularly if your weapon of choice is a grenade launcher. I guess that is a judgement call, and hey, one of the points of this site is that people can have opinions that are not dictated to them. No worries!
Nevertheless, I don’t know how Clergyguy’s decision not to clarify his position gives you justification to refuse to reconsider yours, or at least acknowledge that there may be other valid positions.
Umm… wouldn’t you have to acknowledge that my position may be valid?
When a person declines multiple opportunities to correct themselves or clarify their position, that does in fact give support to those who criticize their position. Honest people generally find it quite easy to correct and clarify. I’m sure you would agree with me if we were talking about a holocaust denier, for example. A common approach from believers is to take their ball and go home the moment their hypocrisies are pointed out or if they are challenged on something that makes them uncomfortable. Seen it countless times. It would be quite difficult to interpret that in a positive light. That means those actions reinforce my opinion rather than making me wish to reconsider them.
I understand that you interpret his actions differently, but again this is just different interpretations and it would be difficult for you to say your interpretation of his words is right and mine is wrong without accepting that I have the right to say the same. All the man had to do was clarify. Declining the chance to correct himself implies something to me.
Is there something to offer them beyond ridicule?
Besides intense deprogramming therapy, probably not.
Same objection, minus the self-righteousness:
How do you know that “your religion” is right and “their religion” is wrong? Is there any evidence that suggests one is more probable than the other? Is there any evidence that suggests that both are improbable? Couldn’t the same questions (”What makes people participate in these things? Are they desperate? Lonely? Bored? Emotionally needy?”) be asked of any religion? What religion would you consider “true” if you had been raised in Saudi Arabia?
Well, it does help the credibility along somewhat that the text of the very religion itself shuns the behavior shown in the video (as LRA and I talked about lower in the thread). When you call yourself a Christian, and say you believe in the instructions in the Bible, and the instructions in the Bible say, pretty literally “Don’t get carried away with the speaking-in-tongues stuff or the pagans will think you’re off your nut!”, and then you get intentionally carried away with the speaking-in-tongues stuff…
…I think there’s some room for objective criticism.
I don’t. The Bible can be interpreted in a near-infinite number of ways. Glossolalia is not the only example of an idea that is “glorified” in one area and “shunned” in another, or even by the same (depending on your interpretation). “That religious practice is unsound but this religious practice is sound” is always fallacious.
“That religious practice is more bizarre than this religious practice”, maybe, mayyybbbeeee, but I suspect all religious practices are equally bizarre.
(In other words, yes it’s odd that the Bible says pretty explicitly that “speaking in tongues” at will is demon-possession, but it also pretty explicitly says to give up all your worldly belongings and follow Jesus, and very few people are doing that. It’s not a real argument.)
That’s a good point.
Fair enough. I respect that position, certainly.
From inside the construct of biblical Christianity, though, I think the case of glossolalia, and how it should be treated, is more clear-cut than you make it out to be. Certainly a thing can be glorified and still have strict rules set up around it, and the rules about how speaking-in-tongues is to be done in church are some of the clearest I can think of (only two or three per service, one at a time, must be an interpreter present, don’t act like a holier-than-thou ass, try not to do it when non-believers are around, don’t direct it at other people), instructions and rules which are never contradicted.
It *baffles* me how something so clear can be hackeneyed and minced by some interpreters. I mean, these aren’t great mysteries, but practically a user manual. It is from this point of view that I’m arguing some legitimate criticism can be had. Standing outside of Christianity, of course, all of it seems silly, but from within Christianity, I think a solid case can be made for criticizing the practices that seem to deviate from the clear instructions of the faith.
If you look at the 2 women (the one in the red and the one in the overalls) they keep looking at each other and the rest of the crowd to check that everyone is properly impressed by how holy they are. Its all a show to impress the schoolyard bully Jesus so he will be nice to you today and not send you to hell.
Unfortunately, I was raised in this faith (Some form of Pentecostalism, I suspect) and used to be one of these people around the man. I finally had enough questions that couldn’t be answered through their bible thumping that I left.
More than likely, the man was a visitor to the church, or at least someone who was slightly interested. I think, for the most part, Clergy Guy said it correctly if you follow the definition of hysteria (on my mac, “exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement, esp. among a group of people”). I’ve often wonder how I got mixed up in it all and how I ended up believing for so long, and I think I’ve narrowed down what causes this sort of behavior.
What ends up happening is the preacher says a few key things in the service that end up hitting home with you. Either they appeal to your emotions, or they scare the hell out of you. Then, near the end, he calls for music and basically opens up the alter for a “prayer service”. What ends up happening is all of the ‘regulars’ go down, and begin to pray. Generally quietly at first, or if the service was particularly moving, it’ll be rather exuberant.
If you are a newcomer, this causes you to practically be the only one in your seat. Either you end up making your way yourself, or a kind soul sees your ‘plight’ and ushers you to the front. Most people, not wanting to offend, agree. More than likely, you’ll end up near the back.
As soon as the group of followers notice you there, though, you’ll be pulled or pushed towards the middle. And then practically everyone “lays” their hands on you. All of this is happening amidst people crying, ’singing praises’, bowing, dancing, etc. The air is practically electrified with how much emotion is in the crowd.
Finally, as you are very nearly forced to pray by those around you, someone explains to you what the Holy Ghost is, and how it is evidenced by the “baptism of fire and speaking in tongues”. They tell you it’s not something that you can control, that it’s God’s spirit speaking through you to edify God… or something. I never quite got a completely straight, unified answer about it all.
Essentially, if you do not receive the Holy Ghost through the evidence of speaking in tongues (their words exactly), you’ll essentially be going to hell when you die. Or, if they aren’t so bold as to say that, they’ll tell you the only way to heaven is through speaking in tongues via the Holy Ghost.
Thus, you have IMMENSE pressure to “receive the holy ghost”. You begin beseeching God for it, you begin to truly feel as if you want nothing more to feel God’s forgiveness. You immediately become intensely vulnerable. Everything you do through the day to deal with your problems and cope with them ends up dropping away and you realize that life is hard and you need help. All of these realizations come through the help of those around you telling you about it, of course. And finally, everyone around you is basically waiting for you to speak in tongues; they are praying out loud, to God, for you to receive the Holy Spirit. They are telling you to repent. They are asking God to forgive you, etc. It is an enormous amount of peer pressure.
All of this while a prayer leader is telling you to “loosen your tongue”, to allow God to work through you, etc. Their is almost always also particularly moving music being played. If you aren’t the first convert of the night, you’ll see other people “receiving the Holy Ghost”. It is essentially one big mind f***, because everyone around you (hundreds of people sometimes) is doing this, and you (who thought you were cool with God and such) are not.
And suddenly, you just buckle and give in and speak gibberish, and everyone “rejoices” around you. It’s such a sense of relief that you “got it”, that you’re “saved”, that you feel a rush of emotion and good feelings. Many converts cry and drop to their knees, others shout, jump, or dance. If you dare open your eyes, everyone around you is smiling at you or thanking God that he did such a miracle for you. All of this is massive confirmation that something just happened and that you have been accepted into their ranks.
Ultimately, I think, that’s what keeps you there. Such severe peer pressure, and such amazingly high expectations. Suddenly, since you just uttered gibberish, anything is possible with God. And they’ll go on to tell you that miracles DO happen, and only through the power of the Holy Ghost. You feel empowered and safe.
So, in light of this, can you blame these people? Truly, they have been duped by the most skilled hands possible: those who don’t know they are lying to you, and believe the lies with all of their heart. These people essentially appeal to and fulfill the most basic emotional needs a human has.
In short, what they offer is quite the heady brew, heh. I don’t feel automatically anymore that these people are stupid. They were simply duped by extremely skilled tricksters, heh.
This is a good analysis of the dynamics.
When I speak to an audience, I am always aware of how easy it would be to manipulate someone vulnerable. They’re not hard to spot, either–they usually have the deer in headlights look. Young people are easy to manipulate, too.
I think it is raping of the soul. If I ever have to sit through another one of those session, I think I’ll rise up and “lay holy hands” upon the preacher and his bully pulpit.
Haha, raping of the soul is probably the best definition for this I’ve ever heard! You’re so right, heh. I understand the reactions of every for saying they’re so stupid. It’s most definitely my knee jerk reaction.
But you’re right. Many times, people get emotionally ‘bullied’ into it, and once you get in too deep, it’s very difficult to get out.
Acording to you, what would the best technique be to let these people see that they make a laughing stock of the world by doing this?
I have been reading a lot about hypnosis and what I have heard many times is that people act like this not because of the hynotist but because a context gets created where it is prfectly normal to behave like this. While outside this group they restrict themselves a lot because it is not done acting like this..
What does priest does is basic mass hypnosis, and works perfect on those that are weak minded.
Mass hypnosis sounds about right to me, Olaf. Very interesting way to look at it.
As for making them see what they’re doing, I think that would be extremely difficult. You would essentially have to get them to confront the fact that they are lying to themselves. Just like any dogmatic or fundamentalist faith with lots of group pressures, this can be nearly impossible unless the person is ready to admit it themselves… The fact that it is ridiculous forces them into an Us VS Them scenario even more, and makes them dig their heels in. In fact, when I was a believer, I’d seen many videos of people having prayer meetings just like this, and it just helped confirm the belief even more. So… I would argue you can’t even give them an outsider’s perspective to make them see it.
In short, I truly don’t think there is a way to get someone to see this as ‘bad’ or silly until they’re ready to see it for themselves and admit it.
Yes the “us versus them”. That helps a lot to isolate people.
If you know a bit about hypnosis then you also know that these people are already in trace before the priest come in. They expect to be in trance so they automatically go into trance. So for the priest it is pretty easy job.
People in this state cannot be shown in a gentle state to get out of it.
Um, no. They’re psychotic. They are literally sick. Like most sick people, their sickness can be contagious. They infect other people with their sickness. That some weak willed people succumb to the psychosis should not be downplayed as mere “dynamics”.
The single most alarming thing in the video for me was the 3 y/o boy looking on and assuming these demonstrably psychotic acts are “normal”. These people should be locked away for child abuse.
I was raised in Pentecostalism and was around the dynamic shown in the video from my earliest years. I was “baptized in the Spirit” and spoke in tongues at the age of around 4 1/2. To really blow your mind, take these video images and transfer them to a summer Bible camp with 500 children experiencing the same stuff. That’s how I was raised. The feelings of “peace” on the back end of the ecstasy are absolutely incredible. Even tho I have been out of this for over 25 years, when I watched the video I had a mild, sympathetic emotional response to the last part.
I also became a Pentecostal minister but interestingly, the older I got the less comfortable I became with the overt emotionalism. As a minister I would probably have been more identified with the charismatic movement which has much of the same theology but more palatable group emotional expressions. My deconversion came through education and I walked away at the age of 31.
Would you lock away aboriginal spiritists? It’s much the same thing. My parents loved me very much and were doing the best they could do.
Really, the underlying theology is foundationally similar to all the other Christian fundamentalist groups and they are all susceptible to reasoned argument. However, the emotional experience, as Keith has stated, is so strong that very few can be talked out of it based on a rational discussion of the emotional craziness of the experience. I think that in this respect, Pentecostals are similar to mystics like John C and even perhaps many liberals who remain in the car long after the tires have deflated.
“they are all susceptible to reasoned argument.” I agree with everything you said. It really is about emotion. There is absolutely no way to reason with someone who has “felt” Jesus to their core being. Or as someone would say felt ‘Jesus IN you’ Trying to convince them otherwise is like telling them the sky is red or there are 10 minutes in the color yellow. They look at you with pity because they know – they felt it – they know it as much as you know you’re alive right now. That is why there will always be religion, to fill that emotional need that we humans have. We are emotional, feeling, fleshy creatures living in a harsh and cruel world. We need to be part of the group, we need to fit it, we need to feel.
“Would you lock away aboriginal spiritists?”
You mean snake handlers? If a child was present, absolutely!
No, I mean aboriginal spiritists. Physical endangerment would be actionable but in the few videos I’ve seen the adults don’t seem to allow children to handle snakes.
Snakehandlers it is, then. Note that I said PRESENT.
The point is that any adult who exposes a child to psychotic acts should be locked away.
I’m even willing to be a pussy and settle for mental lock-up and treatment, but I’d be fine with a re-education camp or prison.
Mm, no.
Would you, or would you not, separate children from people with tribalistic traditions, say, Native Americans (from the South half of America), which to us would be as nonsensical as those people in the video?
Say, candomblé, a religion native from Africa, seen from a Catholicism-laced perspective, which involves dancing, chanting and “incorporating” (suggesting possession). Would you separate the children of practitioners from them?
Yep.
However, aboriginal is a relative term. Even so called “Native Americans” may or may not be “aboriginal”.
But I’d note that it isn’t about tribalistic traditions or “nonsense”, people do nonsensical stuff everyday. And almost all of us (atheist or not) observe the pagan rituals of Xmas and Easter, etc.
I’m positing that the acts in the video (and the case you cite) are clearly psychotic behavior and it’s in society’s interest to mitigate its impact on children. The adults can be a crazy as they wanna’ be as long as it doesn’t harm others.
I do understand that I’m not likely to get my wish, but yeah I’d do my best to isolate this behavior from children.
Oh? And why is that psychotic behavior? What do you define as psychotic behavior?
That was absolutely gut wrenching to see grown adult people so completely brainwashed to act like that. The problem that makes me wonder about is: THESE PEOPLE GO TO POLLS AND VOTE.
How on earth can you get anything constructive done when people like this can force a vote? What’s next for the US, a type of Sharia Law for Xtians?
BACK TO THE DARK AGES WE GO.
I didn’t vomit, though it was a close thing. That’s because I turned the video off after about 30 seconds. These poor deluded people have no idea of what they are doing, but, they love doing it. I wonder if they ever watch their ridiculous activities and think about what they are doing. Oops! did I say think? Sorry, how silly of me…it doesn’t apply here.
Except that the bible is VERY clear that speaking in tongues is from the DEVIL if there is no one there to actually interpret it…
Yeah, Paul harped on that pretty clearly; he was worried about chasing away potential converts by exposing them to the silliness of mass tongues and having them conclude that Christians are clearly insane.
Exactly! :) BTW miss you lately… been busy?
Oh and why don’t we see you on the forum? :)
Been fairly busy with a new job. Not much down time.
I find this no more convincing that watching a voodoo ritual. These people are crazy.
This was relatively tame compared to “Jesus Camp.”
Find some video of churches that practice snake-handling. THAT’S entertainment.
The sad thing is my mom is one of these idiots. In this case, the apple landed about as far away from the tree as it could. She’s utterly ridiculous. I wish I could get through to her.
The chick in the red sweater needs a lude.
It’s just so incredibly hilarious that the “Tongue of Angels” is indistinguishable from the “Tongue of Childhood Jibberish”.
Yes, it’s the same mechanism. It is amusing/sad that it’s so obvious, but they refuse to see the connection.
The saddest part is that they still think that schizophrenics are possessed with demons who are mocking the holy spirit. They tend to dance around actually saying it because part of them knows that its wrong to say, but they also equally “know” the bible is true, so they are a little demon possessed.
These videos are particularly tough for me. I was raised in this form of religion, and still pretend every sunday to be a good little believer. I haven’t quite figured out a graceful way to leave yet… My grandfather was a pastor when he was alive, and now my aunt is now my pastor. (don’t ask me how this lines up with the bible, only Satan would point out such an obvious contradiction in faith. besides God told her he’s cool with it, he sent her an ANGEL and everything.) Leaving the church would be alienating myself from my family, and despite the fact they do and say things, they are afraid to admit to being ashamed about, I still love them.
How can I justify leaving to these people. I CAN’T compete with seeing angels! It is an unassailable argument. There is no arguing with a person who by there own admission went to the brink of insanity trying to fight God’s will.
But yes, “speaking in tongues” is real, just not from God. But it does have some really nice feeling energy to it, even if I don’t know how it works. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t doing it for attention, its pretty much encouraged. Theres one lady that always seems to get divine revelations from Jesus right as my aunt is about to close service and theres a nice gentle quiet in the room, which is broke by some crazy lady speaking in tongues as loud as she can.
“he sent her an ANGEL and everything…I CAN’T compete with seeing angels!”
Replace the word ANGEL with FAIRY or MONSTER and she might be considered crazy, but because she uses the word “Angel” it’s totally believable and perfectly fine.
Imagine if she said to her congregation: Last night a Pink Fairy appeared to me and said….
VL…That’s a nice reminder to a proselytizer of how it sounds to an atheist. Substituting “Zeus” is also effective! lol
Travis…Quite a plight you got there, and my sympathies go out to you. Hope you find a graceful way soon, but if you’re a young person, maybe think about getting them to pay for you to learn a skill before you go (if you haven’t got one, and if your sanity isn’t too vulnerable!). Talk them into a trade school, even. Anything beats 9 bucks an hour.
Yes. Travis, if I did not have a skill to support myself, getting one would be my goal. Establishing your own household would give the space necessary for you to start an honest dialogue. If you already live on your own, then you may need to find a job farther away and move so that you are not in constant contact.
All of my friends were in the faith as was my job and family. Although the transition out was not easy, I didn’t need to fear being abandoned. I was able to make new friends and start a new career. Leaving Christianity was a deeply healthy choice. It was also a wonderful gift I gave to my children as they were not subsequently raised in church.
Are they tapping into the same phenominon that Hitler tapped into at the Nuremberg rally’s?
In a very broad sense yes but it’s not just Hitler. Both patriotism and faith invoke very strong reinforcing emotions regardless of the specific underlying ideology or religion. My own opinion is that public speaking is primarily the process of drawing out favorable emotions in one’s audience. For that reason I would much rather read a politician’s speech than watch it, thus bypassing the subtle physical cues. This battle for the emotions of the public is probably the most troublesome aspect of politics imo.
Possibly the greatest challenge we have as rationalists is neutralizing ‘the feeling of knowing’ (the emotional charges evolution has given the brain for reinforcing decisions regardless of the underlying reality of the decision).
Indeed. The cues are immense: you have music, you have impassionated speech, you have a crowd that, even if you don’t immediately react, encourages you to, draws the emotion out. Soon enough you’re ready to believe anything the guy says – even if the high fades afterwards.
I wonder what they would do if all of a sudden the roof collapsed on them and killed several children. The randomness of the universe is brutal – but who are we to argue with the opportune nature of chaos?
They would probably move to a new location where they would have funerals for the dead and thank God for saving the survivors.
you are probably right! I wonder if they were all wiped out though…kinda like that huge tsunami that killed 200,000 little ants (humans) and the orbits of the planets just kept humming along according to their laws…like nothing ever happend. Imagine that – the universe didn’t care! Makes you wonder WHEN we’re all destroyed if the universe would “care”
Did happen over here, once.
Church relocated like a nest of ants. Life went on.
ants we are… really smart ants we may be but nothing more. I know, it’s scary to accept but it’s true – we are ants. Our planet is a tiny little spec of dirt in a little spec of a galaxy amongst trillions of galaxies and countless planets. Our ant brains cannot even comprehend the distance to the nearest star. We are nothing special. It’s kinda scary, to think we’re just smart dirt – but it’s true…write all the little books you want or conjecture on this or that – the church ceiling will fall while you speak in tongues …. in time – and we will be no more ever again.
If you were a god and wanted or needed worshipers, are those the people you would want in your club?
If you were a God and needed worshipers, would you be picky?
I have actually experienced a lifetime in this bullshit they call “spirituality.” I am an out lesbian–a and if you look at me it is pretty obvious. After experiencing the crowd “rid me of my demon of homosexuality” and “cleanse me with the holy ghost”, I was outraged.
I have never been back to that cult-like “church”.
PS
And I still am an out lesbian… lol.
I can understand how some people are susceptible to hysteria in a situation like this, but I have to wonder if any of them viewed this video and thought “…I look like a freaking loon…”. I would be horribly embarrassed.
This debate could go on forever. In any case the video shows that some people in the Xtian faith are certainly different from others of the same and definitely different from we atheists. The problem for the atheist is that these people seem to be cuckoo, gullible and wasting their time on things that are not provable. The atheist can not prove his position either. The atheist will most likely error on the side of common sense and science rather than mumbo jumbo and the “godman” attitude dispalyed by the pastor involved. What furthers the atheist point of view is the fact that there were people on this earth long before the Adam and Eve myth got started. The north American Indians have been proven to be from Asia and were on our continent some 12-15000 years ago. Historians and Archaeologists all prove with out doubt that the earth is older than 6000 years as the bible claims.
So what’s the problem xtians? Your beliefs about Intelligent Design as promoted by Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, and numerous other fundies who just don’t get it, are wrong, unbelievably wrong. So just get off your high horse and admit it. Xtianity is a lost, ancient religion that has or will go the way of the other gods and goddesses who are now defunct.
The chaos. The touching and proximity of bodies in a supportive non-sexual way. This must be the christian version of slam-dancing.